Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Flood Relief

Mr. Mike Gapes: If she will make a statement on her Department's contribution to flood relief. [138066]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): We have responded to a large number of floods during the past year, including in Venezuela and Mozambique, and more recently in India, Vietnam and Cambodia. We are continuing our work to strengthen OCHA, the United Nations co-ordinating agency for emergencies, to ensure that international help is well deployed. We are also helping developing countries that are particularly prone to natural disasters to prepare for them in their development plans.

Mr. Gapes: I am grateful for that reply. Does it not show that the problems that have been experienced in recent weeks by many of our constituents in this country are as nothing compared with the terrible problems experienced globally by people in Mozambique, India and Bangladesh and throughout the world? Does it not also show that serious international efforts need to be made to deal with the climatic causes of such events, so that the lives of millions of people are not put at risk in the future?

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although we are not able, by statute, to operate in the United Kingdom, during the recent floods we offered the assistance of our expert personnel and some vehicles were deployed to help other Departments.
My hon. Friend's point is correct; for example, the situation in Mozambique is already beginning to create cause for concern. The first heavy rains of the season started a week ago; there is flooding in Zambezia and Nampula—nine people were killed overnight. Our contingency planning means that we are ready to respond; a multi-agency planning group, including the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, met recently. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the UK fire and rescue team are also involved. Our emergency response team is monitoring the situation daily. We have

seconded someone to Maputo to work with the United Nations development programme, so we are more ready to deal with the floods than we were last year and we hope to respond even more effectively than we did then.

Mr. John Bercow: What proportion of the flood victims are still housed in accommodation centres? How many of them are suffering from either cholera or malaria? Further to the helpful information that the hon. Gentleman has just given the House, how do those figures compare with the position 12 months ago?

Mr. Foulkes: I do not have the immediate figures to hand, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall write to him with answers to his specific questions. We are extremely anxious to ensure that, wherever possible, such floods do not recur, and that if they do so, they will not have such disastrous effects. That is why we are helping with reafforestation and other programmes to try to ensure that when there is flooding, it is not as devastating as it has been in the past.

Burundi

Ms Oona King: If she will make a statement on her Department's aid projects in Burundi. [138104]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Burundi is still at war despite Nelson Mandela's efforts to facilitate peace. Our support is therefore confined to humanitarian assistance. We have contributed more than £41 million since 1994. We stand ready to provide appropriate support if peace is agreed, but are not in a position to take a leading role in Burundi. We shall also of course be providing considerable support through our European Union contributions.

Ms King: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. She will be aware that, since the outbreak of the civil war in Burundi in 1993, 200,000 people have died. What assistance might the Government be able to offer the peace process in Burundi? Might Burundi benefit from funds from the conflict prevention fund for sub-Saharan Africa?

Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend that the suffering in Burundi is great; in fact, 20 per cent. of the population of Africa are affected by conflict. That is devastating for the people of Africa and holds back human development. We must all do more to resolve conflict wherever we can.
We are already helping the Burundi peace process, through technical support and inputs to the peace negotiators. The pooled fund is intended to cause the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and my Department to work more actively together to resolve conflict; some of the funding already provided to Burundi has gone to the notional funding for that, so it is likely that we shall help in that way. However, the point of the fund is to make a strong impact through the UK's efforts in resolving conflict in Africa.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Burundi is one of the least developed countries and would benefit from the everything but arms initiative from European Commissioner Pascal Lamy. That is greatly to be


welcomed. Is the right hon. Lady aware, however, that that initiative, which is to be decided as early as 5 December at the ministerial meeting in Brussels, would in fact result in impoverishing some African, Caribbean and Pacific countries—in particular those that produce sugar, bananas, rum and rice?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman seems to be taking two slightly contradictory positions. The least developed countries—most of which are in Africa and thus benefit from the African, Caribbean and Pacific tariff options—make up 0.4 per cent. of world trade. Those are the poorest countries in the world. Pascal Lamy's proposal, which we strongly support, is that those countries should be given improved access to the European market. A campaign has been mounted by countries which produce sugar, bananas and rum, and which feel threatened. We shall obviously look into any adjustment help that is needed. I do not think that the least developed countries—least of all Burundi—will be able to build up their exports quickly—until peace is achieved.

Ms Tess Kingham: This morning I had a very enjoyable breakfast with the World Service and heard about the World Service's Great Lakes lifeline project, a regular radio broadcast in Burundi that is funded by the Department for International Development. Does my right hon. Friend believe that such radio broadcasts can contribute to the peace-building process in Burundi, and will we continue to fund peace-building media projects that disseminate the peace message through civil society?

Clare Short: I hope that my hon. Friend's children enjoyed the broadcast as much as she obviously did. Such broadcasts are very important. In Rwanda, hate radio played an enormous part in building up the hate and lies that generated the atmosphere that led to the genocide. The same sort of thing happened in the Balkans. Now that radio technology has become so flexible, we are increasingly trying to deploy it to get truth through to people in situations where there is a lot of conflict, and a lot of dishonesty that feeds that conflict.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the Secretary of State agree that the continuing war in the Great Lakes region is a destabilising factor in Burundi? Does she also agree that the free flow of small arms into that region is a major factor in continuing that war? What pressure is she bringing to bear on her Government to introduce the promised legislation on the control of arms brokers?

Clare Short: I very much agree that the war in the Great Lakes is causing enormous destabilisation and involving many countries in Africa in conflict. Small arms are circulating around the continent of Africa that are manufactured within the continent, not imported, so we must do more to extract small arms, using different initiatives such as the one in the Southern Africa Development Community and the one in west Africa. The Government strongly support and will introduce the legislation to which the hon. Lady refers, although I cannot say exactly when.

Sudan

Sandra Gidley: If she will make a statement on her Department's aid policy to Sudan. [138105]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): Since 1991 we have provided £217 million in humanitarian relief in Sudan, but 1.5 million people have died in the war and the suffering of the people continues to get worse. Our priority is therefore peace. We are working diplomatically to strengthen the Intergovernmental Authority on Development peace process and we have made it clear to local Church groups and non-governmental organisations that we are keen to fund any peace-building activities that they suggest to us. Unfortunately, the interest of regional leaders in a peace settlement remains very weak.

Sandra Gidley: Does the Minister agree that there is acute underdevelopment in southern Sudan, and that development aid should be provided in many areas where there is now relative stability? Problems such as poor education and lack of access to health care can be addressed. To that end, how many proposals from non-governmental organisations has the Department supported, and what plans are there to support such organisations specifically in future?

Mr. Foulkes: We plan to spend £4 million in humanitarian assistance in the current year and we are looking forward to receiving proposals from Church groups and NGOs. Unfortunately, they have not come forward as quickly as we should like, and we are doing everything that we can to encourage them. If the hon. Lady, who may have contacts—or any Member of the House—will encourage them to come forward, we shall be very receptive to any proposal that would help in the peace process, would help with humanitarian assistance or would help poor people in Sudan in any other way.

Mr. Tony Worthington: The Minister is right to draw attention to the aid effort, which has probably been going on for 30 years, and the amazing work that has been done from Lokichokio in northern Kenya to supply aid, which is incredibly expensive. The solution can only come by the political route. My hon. Friend has mentioned the lack of concern by the other countries in the region, because some solution must come from there, but can he give us an up-to-date report on the response of the Sudanese Government to the situation in a country that has been torn apart by war?

Mr. Foulkes: We are certainly continuing our efforts and working with Norway and the United States in particular. However, there has been a setback recently. The visit of Susan Rice, the assistant Secretary of State from the United States, was very unhelpful and risked setting back the peace process. We urge the Sudanese Government not to respond negatively to the visit. We hope that the peace process will get back on track as quickly and as effectively as possible.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Of the 48 least and less-developed—LLD—countries, 21 produce sugar, and Sudan has the largest sugar production among them. If the European Commission's


everything but arms—EBA—initiative goes ahead and Sudan and other countries have duty-free, quota-free access for sugar to the European market, it is very likely that other African, Caribbean and Pacific countries will be driven into poverty. Will the Minister elaborate on the Secretary of State's response and tell us what assessment the Department has made of the impact of the EBA initiative on aid policies in Sudan and other African countries? Does he really support an initiative which, as it currently stands, will probably relegate several Caribbean countries to the very LLD status that the policies seek to alleviate?

Mr. Foulkes: No one is more sympathetic to the problems of the Caribbean than our Department, this Government, my Secretary of State and myself. We have been involved with the bananas problem and with issues relating to rice, rum, sugar and other products. Conservative Members have a strange sense of priorities. The hon. Lady spoke about it in Westminster Hall the other day, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) asked about it earlier and the hon. Lady now raises it again. The whole purpose of the everything but arms scheme is to help the poorest countries of the world, which make up only 0.4 per cent. of world trade. They contain the poorest people in the world, so I should have thought that they would have been made a priority by Conservative Members, as they have by the Government.

West Bank and Gaza

Mr. Richard Burden: If she will make a statement on the effects of her Department's aid to promote improved health and living standards in the West Bank and Gaza. [138106]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We are working to support the Palestinian Authority to prepare for statehood as part of the middle east peace process, now tragically stalled. This work includes helping the Palestinian Authority to deliver better basic health services and to improve access to essential water and sanitation services. Closure of the west bank and Gaza has, however, led to continuing economic decline.

Mr. Burden: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and draw her attention to a meeting that is being hosted by Christian Aid in the House this afternoon to highlight the situation in the middle east. Will she join me in refuting the ridiculous stories that have been placed in at least one national newspaper purporting to say that British aid is being used to fund terrorism? In refuting that, will she join me in saying that we cannot have full economic development for the Palestinian people while they are denied the human rights that most of us take for granted, while they cannot move freely around their own land, while their schools are shelled by Israeli troops and while they are forced to live in communities that often resemble Bantustans? Will my right hon. Friend join me in saying that the international community must redouble its efforts to accompany its aid programme by ensuring a durable and lasting peace in the middle east that is based on United Nations resolutions?

Clare Short: I am glad to have the opportunity to confirm that, despite the claim in the News of the World,

the technical assistance and the equipment provided to Palestinian schools in no way support terrorism. It is disgraceful to call into question that help with such slurs and lies, which were not checked with anyone in my Department. I also agree—I would have thought that the whole House did—that the situation in the middle east is tragic and dangerous and that life cannot improve or prosper for either the Israeli or Palestinian people as long as the conflict continues. We desperately need a just peace and we need it as soon as possible. It will come in the end, because neither side can achieve victory through military means. The conflict is a tragedy for both peoples.

Africa

Jane Griffiths: If she will make a statement on her Department's plans for addressing violent conflict in Africa. [138108]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Of the 44 countries in sub-Saharan Africa more than 20 are affected by conflict. This causes suffering and impoverishment to 20 per cent. of the population of Africa and blights the economic development of the whole continent. We contribute directly to many African and international peace-building efforts. Following the comprehensive spending review in July, a joint Department for International Development, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Ministry of Defence committee has been established with a pooled budget to try to strengthen the effectiveness of the UK's contribution to conflict resolution in Africa.

Jane Griffiths: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will she clarify how the new African conflict prevention joint pool will work? How will the British Government thereby help to play a greater part in conflict prevention in Africa?

Clare Short: I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that those terrible figures, which reveal the extent of conflict in Africa—the suffering that results from it and the block on development that it constitutes—show that the whole world needs to do better to resolve conflicts. Many conflicts are not between states, but between failed states that are involved in banditry over diamonds, for example, and the people there cannot do anything to bring about peace without outside assistance. The pooled budget brings together the efforts of our separate departments in Africa to see whether, by sharing analysis country by country and establishing priorities, the United Kingdom, through its work at the UN and elsewhere, can do more to resolve conflict, starting, of course, with Sierra Leone.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: The right hon. Lady rightly mentioned that conflicts hold up the development aid that we provide. Will she comment on the conflict in Ethiopia with relation to development aid?

Clare Short: I can indeed—in fact, I flew back overnight from Ethiopia. We are pleased, and the UN is optimistic, that the peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea is deepening, and we expect peackeepers to be deployed soon. Ethiopia is, I think, the poorest annually on food aid. We must have to create development. We need


development aid that invests in improved economic performance followed by trade that builds up the economy and enables people to Work. We are hopeful that the War is over and Ethiopia can get back to development.

Mr. Tom Clarke: In view of the circumstances of violence and civil war in many parts of Africa, does my right hon. Friend accept that the Government's humanitarian aid programme is very commendable? Does she also agree, given the evidence of the need for access to education, particularly for girls, and for infrastructure to provide electricity and telecommunications, that it is essential to have a programme of sustainable development, especially in sub-Saharan Africa?

Clare Short: I agree with my right hon. Friend that where people are affected by conflict and the quality of their lives is deteriorating, we must provide humanitarian relief. The tragedy is that that does not bring a solution. Sudan has had a prolonged war and received masses of humanitarian aid, but there have also been many deaths and the war has displaced many people whose lives are getting ever harder. Humanitarian aid is as essential as Elastoplast, but we need a much bigger effort to end conflict so that resources can go into development and building the economy instead of continuing the suffering.

Mr. Gary Streeter: The Secretary of State is consistently right on many matters—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Labour Members may want to wait until the end of the question before cheering.
The right hon. Lady is consistently right that for the poorest people in Africa, the key consideration is achieving peace in their country. We can all be very proud of the part that British troops have played in peacekeeping activities in Africa over many years. Can the right hon. Lady confirm the clear statement in the German press that the European rapid reaction force is to operate within a 4,000 km radius of Brussels, which will take in vast areas of Africa? What future role does she see for that force in countries such as Ethiopia, Sudan, Sierra Leone and others? Was her Department consulted before the decision to sign up for it was taken?

Clare Short: When the hon. Gentleman started his question, I thought that for a change we might be able to exchange compliments, but sadly that is not so. Anyone who intelligently observed the trouble in the Balkans and Kosovo, and the contribution that Europe made to that conflict on our own borders and our lack of heavy lift equipment to get our troops there, knows that European armed forces need to co-operate. That is the intention so that we can do our job properly in our own continent and take seriously our international responsibilities. Anyone with any sense should be proud of that development.

Mr. Streeter: The right hon. Lady has clearly not been properly briefed about the 4,000 km radius of the ERRF. My question was about Africa. Is the right hon. Lady not concerned that our capacity to help bring an end to violent conflict in Africa will be seriously undermined, either by the new army focusing narrowly on Europe, or by overstretching our armed forces so that UN peacekeeping for operations such as Sierra Leone become impossible?
Have the Government thought through the implications for a wider development capacity of signing up to the Euro-army at the same time as trying to remain part of NATO, conduct operations such as the one in Sierra Leone, take part in UN peacekeeping activities and have troops available to help in humanitarian disasters? Is not the truth that the policy is not just shortsighted for Europe but has its dangers for the people of Africa?

Clare Short: It is very sad that, with some strength in its historical record, the Conservative party is becoming so neuralgic about Europe that it is making itself completely stupid. In the post-cold war world, we must clearly be better at peacekeeping and prevention of conflict in our near abroad. European countries co-operating in that effort must be good for all parts of the world.[Interruption.] I am afraid, again, that the hon. Gentleman is heckling, so he cannot learn. If he listened, he might be a bit wiser.

Mr. Desmond Browne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that countries with a poor record in protection of human rights also tend to be those with high levels of violent conflict, and that the protection of human rights is in itself a method of conflict prevention? If she does, will she confirm that both her Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will include in their pooled resources support for human rights projects in sub-Saharan Africa?

Clare Short: I agree very much with my hon. Friend. Conflict is often caused when one group in a country tries to take the political power and all the economic resources—not sharing them fairly—so that other people feel the need to use force to get justice. That is a very frequent cause of conflict in poor countries.
I confirm that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has prioritised human rights in his Department's work, and that in complementing that, my Department focuses on the human rights of the poorest. Our Government have paid increased attention to that important issue.

EU Trade Preferences

Dr. Vincent Cable: What proposals she has for reforming the EU' s generalised system of trade preferences for developing countries. [138109]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The European Commission is reviewing the generalised system of preferences, which allows access to the European market for developing countries that do not have any other preferential trading arrangements. The UK has been one of the most active member states in pushing for improvements. We are pressing for reductions in the complexity of the system and to increase the level of market access—especially in the areas of agriculture and textiles.

Dr. Cable: Does the Secretary of State agree that the once idealistic system of trade preferences has been enormously devalued by the proliferating red tape and numerous exemptions given to protectionist interests in European agriculture and industry? Will she commit the British Government to a radical reform that will roll back


trade barriers for developing countries in general and provide unrestricted access for the world's 48 poorest countries?

Clare Short: I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman. The GSP is good but very complex, and there is evidence that many countries do not take up their preferences because it is so unclear that they have them. So, the system is clearly not working well. I agree also that there are protectionist instincts in some EU countries.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman in his fine book on globalisation, which I have read, that opening up trade in a way that enables countries to adapt will enlarge the world economy for us all, particularly the poorest countries.

Mr. James Paice: Nobody would deny that opening up trade to the least developed countries is bound to be to their advantage, but may I take the right hon. Lady back to the issue of sugar? It is not right simply to say that because such countries have only 0.4 per cent. of world trade, the market should be opened to everybody. To pauperise some of the underdeveloped world in order to help another part will not achieve anything. Will she have another look at the Government's support for the inclusion of sugar in EBA—there should at least be a proper impact assessment and the ACP countries should be properly consulted.

Clare Short: I am shocked that although the Conservative party claims to be in favour of free trade, when it comes to a specific provision for the poorest countries in the world, it is suddenly against it. As I have said, I do not agree with Conservative Members. The historical record—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) should listen instead of heckling. The ACP treaty—Lomé—gave Africa privileged access to the European market, but the poorest countries did not take it up because they had other difficulties with their economies, such as the incidence of conflict and with transport. The arrangements will help them, but there will not be a massive take-up. In the meantime, because of the World Trade Organisation bringing down tariffs right through the international system, the countries that depend on preferential systems will adjust anyway. We will look to that adjustment and look to help them. The hon. Gentleman and his party should think again about questioning this help to the poorest countries in the world.

PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the first question to the Prime Minister, I wish to make a short statement. Questions to the Prime Minister should be brief. Long introductory statements cut down the time for proper scrutiny of Government. Questions should concern matters for which the Government are responsible. Those which relate to Opposition policies or to the activities of local authorities are inappropriate. I hope that brief questions will be followed by brief answers. Finally, I appeal to the House for much less noise. That will help me to keep the exchanges in better order.

The Prime Minister was asked—

Iraq

Q 1. [138133] Dr. Norman A. Godman: If, when he last met leaders of other NATO member states, matters relating to military operations and non-military sanctions against Iraq were discussed.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): We maintain regular contacts with allies over sanctions on Iraq.

Dr. Godman: While people everywhere regard Saddam Hussein and those around him as evil men—men who should face trial at an international criminal court in the future—does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that there is deep concern everywhere over the dreadful misery inflicted upon the Iraqi people by the sanctions regime? Has not the time come for the Government to agree to support the case for the suspension of sanctions, even though that might cause anger in Washington? Sanctions have to go, do they not?

The Prime Minister: The problem is that while Saddam continues to try and develop weapons of mass destruction, it would be a serious mistake to lift those sanctions. However, I should point out to my hon. Friend that of course we are concerned about the humanitarian situation in Iraq. Some $16 billion will be available to Iraq for food, medicine and infrastructure development this year alone, but I can tell my hon. Friend that in every month over the past six months, Saddam has imported more than 300 million cigarettes and 28,000 bottles of whisky. He could have spent the money on food and medicine for his people, but he chooses not to do so. That is why we will make sure that every possible bit of humanitarian relief gets through to the Iraqi people, but we cannot act in a way that would allow him to be a menace to that part of the world again.

Engagements

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 22 November.

The Prime Minister: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have having further such meetings later today.

Mr. Winterton: The Prime Minister regularly refers, quite rightly, to the importance of law and order, and the importance of the defence of the realm. Is he not a little concerned that he might go down in history as the Prime Minister who destroyed the most effective police force in the world—the Royal Ulster Constabulary—and undermined the most successful defence alliance of all time—NATO?

The Prime Minister: No doubt we will discuss the European defence initiative later. NATO is fully in support of the European defence initiative—[Interruption.]. I know that that is an inconvenient fact to Opposition Members, but it is the truth. In respect of the RUC, we decided as part of the Good Friday agreement that we would have an


independent commission headed by a former chairman of the Conservative party who was also a former Northern Ireland Minister. The commission produced a series of proposals which are not designed to undermine the RUC, but are designed to make sure that we can attract people from all sectors of the community into the police force of Northern Ireland. That is manifestly, I believe, in the interests of all in Northern Ireland who want people, whether they are Catholic or Protestant, nationalist or Unionist, to join the police service of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: In welcoming the extra £1.8 million that the Government have given to the East and West Kent health authorities to help with winter pressures, may I tell my right hon. Friend that there is a bid to the Department of Health for an extra £750,000—at least—to assist with the care of the elderly over the winter? Is my right hon. Friend able to assure me that Health Ministers will examine the issue seriously so as to give confidence to elderly residents throughout Kent that services will be paid for and available?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that we are putting record additional resources into the national health service. Indeed, several hundred million pounds are going into the NHS and social services to deal with the winter crisis. As for my hon. Friend's constituency issue, I shall come back to him on his request. By contrast with the Conservatives, who would cut public spending on our main services, the Government are committed to getting in that investment.

Mr. William Hague: Does the Prime Minister agree with the person who said:

The French and Germans want the Western European Union to be merged into the European Union. This would undermine NATO…?

The Prime Minister: Yes I do agree with that. The proposals made in 1997 would have meant that NATO and European defence ran alongside one another rather than European defence being an issue where NATO as a whole did not want to be engaged. It is for that very reason that we sought changes in the policy, and secured them.

Mr. Hague: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman's pretending that what is on the table now is different from before. What he said was an ill-judged transplant operation. What he told The Guardian would undermine the US commitment to Europe. Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the comments of General Sir Peter de la Billière, who commanded our forces in the Gulf war? He said that
it is difficult to comprehend how we are to meet the increased commitments implied in these proposals … without seriously weakening our commitments to NATO.
Should we not put our faith in someone who led from the front in the Gulf war rather than in people who ran from the front in the cold war?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps it would be as well to agree with the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Guthrie, who said:
I've never heard anyone in authority in the chain of command in this country, whether they he ministers or servicemen, talk of a European army, navy or air force. There is an argument that a strong, more assertive Europe will undermine NATO. I think that wrong. A Europe that remains allied to the US simply because of its own weakness is of limited value.
In addition, NATO has supported the proposal. What is more, the US President, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, have all supported it. The idea that the proposal undermines NATO or the US relationship, when NATO and the US Government have supported it, is a proposition that could only come from the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister likes to say that there is no European army. Mr. Prodi of the European Commission said:
I'm not joking when I call it a European Army.
He added:
You could call it Mary—Ann, you could call it Margare—a good name for an Army and an even better one for a Prime Minister
a Prime Minister who believed in a strong defence of this country.
Is it not clear that we are faced with a political project? The French Prime Minister said:
If we manage to achieve this in the year 2000, we will have crossed a milestone to the creation of a united political Europe.
Is it not obvious—[Interruption.] I shall wait for some order. Is it not obvious, in the words of four Foreign Secretaries, that it is an openly political project that will weaken and challenge the NATO alliance?

The Prime Minister: Interestingly, on Sunday the right hon. Gentleman was on the Dimbleby programme. When asked whether he would withdraw Britain's contribution to the force, he said:
Well this of course depends on what happens at the time that we take Government.
What has changed between then and now? The right hon. Gentleman put his finger on it when he mentioned Margaret. She has come out and told him what to do, and suddenly the bandwagon has become armour-plated. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman now has to sum up his policy in six words. Here are six words for him: "Lady Thatcher, you lead, I'll follow."

Mr. Hague: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister's whole life has been a bandwagon, from selling out to unilateralism in the 80s to selling out to federalism today. We have been doing our own research into quotations from the past. Just before the Prime Minister joined the Labour Front Bench, the magazine "Sanity", of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said:
Parliamentary Labour CND supports the removal of all nuclear weapons from British territory.


That was signed by M Beckett, AN Benn and ACL Blair. The Prime Minister has gone from sanity to vanity in one short career. Now, against the advice of the former commanders of the British Gulf war forces, the leader of the Falklands taskforce, the commander of the US fleet in the Mediterranean, the former Secretary-General of NATO, and the former Chief of the Defence Staff, we are getting the expertise of people whose military experience consists of waving placards at American air bases. Does the Prime Minister think that all those people are fundamentally dishonest?

The Prime Minister: Let us return to the facts. First, there is no proposal for a European army, which was made clear by the statement that was made three days ago:
This process … does not involve the establishment of a European army.
Secondly, there will be a European defence operation only when NATO chooses not to be engaged. Thirdly, there is a complete British veto on whether there is any European defence operation, and specific British consent has to be given to each individual mission. The idea that British troops are going to be marched off by the Brussels Commission in a euro-army is just a euro-scare.
The Tories are raising this because they have lost on the economy and on boom and bust, they have lost on public services, which they are committed to cutting, and they have lost on poverty, which they are committed to increasing. So they come back to the issue of Europe. We will support the true national interest, which is to be engaged and constructive in Europe, fighting for Britain's interest, but seeing our European partners as allies not opponents.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am going to call the Leader of the Opposition again. He must not be shouted down, as that brings the House into disrepute.

Mr. Hague: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Was not the real reason the Prime Minister did a U-turn by committing a quarter of our Army, a quarter of our Air Force and half the Navy to a European army revealed yesterday by the French Foreign Minister? He said:
Tony Blair can't go as far as he would like because [of] public opinion in his country … on the euro, but on defence he saw he could move. He … changed the British position.
Is it not true that this has nothing to do with the defence of our country, but everything to do with going with the flow in Europe and building a European superstate?

The Prime Minister: Again, on the facts, it is the case that there can be no use of British troops without specific British agreement to each and every mission. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that UK troops should never fight alongside other troops or—as this is limited to peacekeeping and humanitarian missions—be engaged except with NATO, may I point out that, since 1990, there have been 23 separate military operations, of which 20 have not been under UK command, and 17 have been non-NATO. How can it be right that our troops can perform alongside those from Argentina, India, Pakistan, Nigeria right round the rest of the world, but not alongside French and German troops? That is absurd. We will carry

on having complete control over British forces wherever they are used. This is not against NATO. On the contrary, as has been pointed out by NATO itself, it helps to give us an extra option when NATO chooses not to be involved.

Mr. Hague: We simply agree with the former Labour Chancellor and Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Healey, who says:
The alliance is a proven and effective tool for crisis management. Why replace it?
Do we not have, for the first time ever, the defences of the nation being sacrificed to the political vanity of one party and one man? He is creating a European army in everything but name, building a European superstate in everything but name, and unless he is stopped he will leave us with a United Kingdom only in name.

The Prime Minister: As usual, when it comes to the pre-prepared jibes, the right hon. Gentleman is fine, but when it comes to the argument, he does not have an argument as to why British troops should not be alongside others in this way. The argument was put best in this way:
Our objective must be to strengthen the European pillar of the Alliance and improve European defence co-operation   If we wish to … ensure that our views continue to be given due weight by future US Administrations, the European Allies must find answers to some difficult questions: Are we able to take on a larger share of the responsibility for our defence? … The answers make it evident that such problems have to be tackled jointly.
Who was the author of that pamphlet? It was the submission made in 1984 to the European Council by the then leader of the British delegation, one Margaret Thatcher. I rest my case.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: The Government have just received a dividend from Railtrack of £300,000 in respect of their 0.2 per cent. shareholding. Will my right hon. Friend use that money to increase the Government's equity stake in the company?

The Prime Minister: No, but with the private sector, we are making a record investment in our transport infrastructure, which it desperately needs. As the Treasury White Paper showed today, Britain is seriously under-investing in schools, hospitals, transport and the police. That is why we are proposing such a huge increase in capital investment in Britain. That is why it is so wrong for the Conservative party to be committed to cutting that vital investment for our public services.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: May I bring the Prime Minister back to an item of domestic policy, rather than wider European policy? Incidentally, it is quite ironic that the Leader of the Conservative party wants to speak about European policy on a day when it has become clear that he cannot even command his own MEPs, who are joining us.
With regard to the Government's education policy and the position in the schools, will the Prime Minister confirm the statement that has been put on the record by the Department for Education and Employment: that the ratio in our secondary schools between pupils and teachers is worse now than when he took office?

The Prime Minister: Yes, the ratio is 0.3 worse than it was in 1997. Those class sizes had been increasing for]


about 10 years before that. We had to decide where our first priority was. As we said in our election manifesto, our first priority was to get money into primary schools and reduce infant classes. That is why the pupil:teacher ratio in primary schools has fallen. We are putting a substantial amount of extra investment into secondary schools, but it is less of a priority there than it has been in respect of primary schools.

Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Prime Minister for that straightforward reply. Does he agree that many within the education sector, as well as the parents themselves, concerned about their children, feel that there is a sense here of robbing Peter to pay Paul? Will he also acknowledge that, simply to return to the position that we were at in terms of class sizes and pupil:teacher ratios in 1997, an extra 9,000 teachers are urgently required for the education sector?

The Prime Minister: That is precisely why we have been increasing investment in teacher training. It is also why, earlier this week, the first rise in teacher recruitment for eight years happened and why we will be recruiting some 28,000 additional teachers this year. As for robbing Peter to pay Paul, that is simply not correct. There is a huge increase in overall investment in education. I remind the right hon. gentleman that he stood at the last election on a manifesto commitment to put an extra 1 p on income tax to pay for education. The extra education spending that we are putting in is four times that amount.

Mr. Patrick Hall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the noise or silence in this place, the issues that matter to the British people today and in future will be the economic stability and competence, the increasing job opportunities and the decent health and education opportunities delivered by the Government? Those are the issues that will matter, and not the hysterical diversionary antics of the barmy army that is the Conservative party today.

The Prime Minister: I agree with that one—those remarks were uncontroversial. However, the serious point made by my hon. Friend is that we have clear choices: between stability or a return to boom and bust, between investment in our public services or cuts under the Conservatives, and between action on poverty—such as the £200 winter allowance and free TV licences for over-75s—and the Conservative proposals to scrap those schemes, as well as the new deal and the working families tax credit. That is a difference not only of policy but of fundamental values and philosophy.

Mr. Michael Jack: At the last general election, the Prime Minister promised the people of Preston more police officers. Currently, one in 10 of Lancashire's officers are either sick or on light duties, and the officers promised via the crimefighting fund will merely replace those who are retiring. Will the Prime Minister explain to the people of Preston when they will get extra officers to meet the rising tide of violent crime in the town?

The Prime Minister: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman managed not to point out that crime has fallen in that particular police force area. He is, of course,

correct about police officer numbers, which is why we are putting in the extra money to recruit more police. Conservative proposals, however, would mean cutting that investment in police.

Mr. Jack: indicated dissent.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman says that that is not his party's policy. Let me quote remarks made by the shadow Treasury spokesman last Wednesday; he said that it was true that the Tories were not committed to Labour's spending plans. So we know that, if the Conservatives were elected, they would cut back on those plans.
I am surprised also that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention the Eurofighter project, on which thousands of jobs in Preston depend. [Interruption.] Yes; thousands of jobs depend on the project. Now the shadow defence spokesman is putting a question mark over it, no doubt because it contains the word "euro". I think that people in Preston will be interested in that as well.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Does my right hon. Friend agree that global warming is the biggest environmental challenge faced by the world, is difficult to tackle and has far-reaching consequences? Britain has a good record on the matter, as does the European Union, but the United States is finding it difficult at the Hague summit to commit itself to making genuine reductions in carbon emissions. What does my right hon. Friend have to say to the American delegation in The Hague?

The Prime Minister: I hope that we can agree in The Hague on the importance of keeping to the Kyoto targets on climate change. We have had enough experience, not only in this country, but around the world, of the need to take action on climate change. This country will be at the forefront of that. We will comfortably meet our targets by 2010 and many other countries will also do so. It is obviously essential that the United States, which has the largest economy in the world, should also be committed to taking action. I hope that we can secure agreement in the next few days. It is vital for the future of the world.

Mr. Graham Brady: Will the Prime Minister undertake today to veto the proposed treaty changes at Nice which would extend qualified majority voting to cover worker representation, including co-determination? If those changes become law, they will allow the imposition of worker directors on boards.

The Prime Minister: This may come as a shock to my hon. Friends, but the answer to that question is, yes, we would veto those proposals. We will be in a far stronger position because we will not be taking such an absurd line—ours is set out in Government policy. Because we are not vetoing every change, including those that are in our interest, we are, as ever—as a result of what we do—more likely to secure our objectives.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Back to European defence. Now that the Americans have made their position clear—William Cohen, the United States Defence Secretary in October last year and, on Monday,


Madeleine Albright—is it not just a little arrogant and patronising of the Opposition to say that they know United States interests better than the United States does? Since all the European North Atlantic Treaty Organisation members that are not part of the EU—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he is asking about the Opposition's policy, but it is not for the Prime Minister to answer for that. Will he rephrase his question?

Mr. Anderson: Since all the European NATO members that are not part of the EU have pledged contributions to the force, what sort of political signal would be sent if, as the Leader of the Opposition suggests, we withdrew? Would not a withdrawal be a sign of a new isolationism?

The Prime Minister: Of course it would be absolutely disastrous. If the Opposition went to the European summit and said that they would withdraw from European defence co-operation even if NATO and the United States were in favour of it—of course, they already have their proposal to block any enlargement of the European Union unless the rest of Europe agrees to a treaty change—the rest of Europe, to a single entity, would say that it would not accept that. That would alienate not merely all the people inside the European Union, but all the people waiting to come into the European Union.
Here are some quotes that we will not read in some of our best-known newspapers. This is one from the United States Deputy Secretary of State:
We want to see a Europe that can act effectively through the Alliance or, if NATO is not engaged—
[Interruptionl]—listen—
or, if NATO is not engaged on its own. Period. End of debate.
The other quote is from William Cohen. He is the United States Defence Secretary, so perhaps he knows a little bit about United States defence policy. This is what he said just a few weeks ago: "We agree with this" policy—that is, European defence co-operation—
not grudgingly, not with resignation, but with wholehearted conviction.

Mr. John Greenway: Is the Prime Minister aware of the deep anxiety felt in the UK sugar industry—among both growers and manufacturers—at proposals for reform of the EU sugar regime? Does he agree that while the everything but arms proposals are well intentioned, they could devastate both African and Caribbean as well as Pacific producers? Why should Britain suffer quota cuts in sugar when we have only 50 per cent. self-sufficiency and other member states have a massive surplus?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point and, yes, we are concerned about the proposal. I gather that there was a debate on it a short time ago. Of course, that is precisely why it is important that, if we wish to influence the proposals coming out of Europe, we are constructive, we are engaged in Europe and we have a leading role in Europe. So many different items come up, day on day on day, that it is important

that this country remain in a position from which it is capable of influencing the rest of Europe, which is precisely why I believe our policy is right.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are probably about 800 people with autistic spectrum disorders in his constituency, but that it is not possible to produce exact figures because no one collects them and there is no agreed mechanism for screening people with autistic disorders or for collating the figures? Will he put his support behind initiatives to collect such data, to agree an objective method of screening and assessing autistic people, and to apply it to children at an early age? Will he put the Government's resources behind supporting those children?

The Prime Minister: Autism is one of the least understood, but most frightening and difficult conditions, for families in particular, to contend with. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the importance of the issue. We are committed generally to more resources in this area and we also support strongly the work of a £350,000 research programme being undertaken by the British Medical Research Council. I shall certainly look at other ways in which we are contributing to that, and perhaps I could write to him about that.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Prime Minister, along with the Home Secretary, review the way in which the Criminal Cases Review Commission deals with its work? Is he concerned, like me, that it took some time for the commission to refer the case of Stephen Downing, who has been in prison for some 27 years, to the Court of Appeal? Will he also ensure that, when a review takes place, bail can be granted straight away?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving some notice of his question. If I may, I shall choose my words carefully in responding to him. I understand that Mr. Downing's case is complex. The commission was asked as part of its review to explore many lines of inquiry, which, I am told, it was at pains to investigate thoroughly. Early in the review, Mr. Downing's representatives told the commission that they wanted fresh and more detailed representations on his behalf. These were received in July 1999, and they are carrying on their review in the light of those representations. In the light of the hon. Gentleman's raising it with me, I will take a personal interest, in the sense of finding out exactly what the current position is in respect of the case, and I will contact him about it.

Mr. John Smith: Having just arrived from the NATO parliamentary assembly meeting in Berlin, may I tell my right hon. Friend that a resolution was passed by NATO parliamentarians unanimously supporting the creation of a European rapid reaction force? Does he agree that the main reason why they did so is that such a force would enhance NATO's military capability—a capability that was dangerously undermined by the Conservative party when in government?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course the support of NATO parliamentarians


probably will not be reported in many quarters here, but it is true that they support the creation of that force, where, as I say, NATO as a whole is not engaged. One of the best examples, and one of the reasons why it is supported, was Bosnia between 1992 and 1995, where for years British and French troops struggled with others to try to maintain peace. America, and therefore NATO, did not wish to be involved, yet we did not have the proper European defence capability to engage in that mission successfully. It is precisely for that reason that, in a

sensible and mature debate, it would be recognised that NATO remains the cornerstone of our security, but it is important, where NATO is not engaged, to have a European defence capability.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: This not an answer but a lecture.

The Prime Minister: I am sorry it is a lecture, but the hon. Lady needs one.

European Defence Co-operation

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should leave the Chamber quietly.

Mr. Hoon: With permission, I should like to make a statement to the House about recent developments in European defence co-operation. There are those who, in recent days, have frankly become a little over-excited, and I should like to set out the facts and separate them from the Euro-sceptic fiction.
Our aim is the improvement of European military capabilities to deal with the security challenges now facing us. The enhanced capabilities will be available to the countries concerned, to the European Union and to NATO. This is a key step towards achieving our goal of strengthening the European pillar of NATO and encouraging our European partners to do more.
This is an aim that everyone in the House should share. It is about making it easier for British armed forces to deploy in a multinational context—a routine requirement of modern operations. I spent this morning with the Royal Regiment of Wales and the Royal Green Jackets, currently serving in Paderborn in Germany. They emphasised to me the number of recent occasions when they had been deployed alongside other European forces from Holland, France and Italy.
I should like to set out what we have been discussing this week at the capabilities commitments conference in Brussels. Last year, it was agreed at the Helsinki summit that European Union nations should, by 2003, be able to deploy rapidly up to 60,000 ground troops to meet the full range of crisis management tasks. Those troops could contribute either to NATO-led operations or, if NATO as a whole was not engaged, to a European-led crisis management mission.
Over the past two days, European partners—both in the European Union and outside it—have been identifying the type and level of forces that they may be able to make available for Petersberg-type operations. It would not be a standing European army. It would be a pool of potentially available national forces. It is envisaged that there would be full transparency and consultation with NATO as a potential crisis develops. It would then be for contributing countries to decide whether, when and how to deploy their armed forces. No country would have to take part. A British Prime Minister, answerable to this House, will always have the final say over the use and deployment of British armed forces.
NATO is and will remain the cornerstone of European defence. It alone remains responsible for the collective territorial defence of its member states. The European Union has stated repeatedly that its aim is to have the ability to conduct military crisis management operations only when NATO as a whole is not engaged. Nothing that has been done in the European Union this week changes any of that. For the foreseeable future, such major operations would draw on NATO assets and use NATO operational planning and command structures. In short, the force would be NATO supported. So it is time we lowered the temperature and raised the tone of the debate.
One way of doing that is to place the current developments in context. In 1992, the Maastricht treaty established the present framework of the European Union and the so-called second pillar of a common foreign and security policy. It said that member states
shall define and implement a common foreign and security policy.
It went on to specify that that
shall include all questions related to the security of the Union, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence.
That policy was signed up to by the previous Conservative Government: it was signed up to by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) as well as by the current Leader of the Opposition.
Those who look for consistency in their politicians might assume that the Leader of the Opposition would still support a policy he signed up to as an ambitious Minister in government. At least it can be said of the shadow defence spokesman, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), that he has consistently opposed Maastricht and consistently opposed the European Union. Sadly, his Euro-sceptic opposition is now leading the Conservative Party, with its leader jumping on the anti-European bandwagon.
The Leader of the Opposition should not try to hide behind NATO. It was NATO at Berlin in 1996 that offered to make its assets available for European operations, and it was NATO at the Washington summit last year that offered its support for the European defence initiative.
The policy that we are discussing today has not suddenly appeared. In fact, what we are doing is a long way short of the aspirations that the last Government signed up to and agreed. I apologise for this short history lesson, Mr. Speaker, but it is important to be clear that the aim that I set out at the beginning—the improvement of European capabilities—is not only an aim that all parties have shared, but an aim that has already been pursued over several years.
If it is necessary for Europeans to do more, why do they not simply take action within NATO? The answer of course is that we do take action within NATO. The fundamental structures of co-operation are there in planning, training, and command and control arrangements. What we are doing through the European Union will complement that action.
There are three main reasons for taking this action. First, there is a clear imbalance in capabilities between the Europeans and the United States, and that has grown over the past decade. Kosovo was a wake-up call. Both the United States and NATO strongly support increased efforts by Europe to respond to that challenge.
Not a single senior figure in the US Administration is opposed to the proposals. Madeline Albright described Monday's conference in Brussels as
a strongly positive development we wholly support.
At the recent NATO conference in Birmingham, Bill Cohen, the US Defence Secretary said:
Let me be clear on the American position—we agree with this goal, not grudgingly, not with resignation but with wholehearted conviction.
The effort now being put into developing better European capabilities—an effort led by Britain—is beginning to have an effect. For years, defence budgets throughout
Europe have been falling. Next year, according to figures given to NATO by its member nations, defence spending will rise in real terms in 11 of the 16 European states of NATO. The restructuring of armed forces to make them better equipped to face today's challenges is taking place in a number of European Union countries.
Secondly, the European Union is already actively involved in crises—through economic sanctions, diplomatic measures and humanitarian aid—but it has lacked clout. In security matters, especially in a real crisis, political weight reflects military weight. The EU has lacked a practical method for mobilising a military response.
The third reason is that additional political will and momentum for Europe to improve its capabilities is best generated through NATO and through the European Union. The multi-dimensional nature of security issues demands a co-ordinated political response. For that, frankly, we would be failing if we did not make full use of the mechanisms offered by the European Union.
The capability commitments conference earlier this week is neither something to fear nor something to scaremonger about. On the contrary, we as a nation should be delighted to see our European partners making a serious commitment to improving their capability to be able to respond to crisis management situations. It strengthens the military capability and resolve of the European Union, and strengthens the capability within the NATO alliance.
This is a statement of requirement—a goal, a level of ambition. It is a means of galvanising action. That is why it is called the headline goal. It is not a European army. It is not even a standing rapid reaction force. Nor is it confined to the European Union. On Tuesday, we heard from non-EU NATO nations and from the 15 EU aspirants. They, too, support the goal. They, too, have offered forces towards it, yet, as we have seen, the Opposition would pull the United Kingdom out of that process. They would have us isolated not only among 15 EU member states, but among 15 further non-EU European states.
Since Helsinki, military experts both from EU countries and from NATO have developed a detailed statement of requirement for the pool of forces and capabilities needed to cover the Petersberg tasks—peacekeeping, peace support and peace enforcement. On Monday, countries nominated elements of their national forces which they believed could contribute to that requirement. The process of identifying those forces is, in principle. no different from the process of declaring forces to NATO, or, indeed, to the United Nations. We need the ability to assemble the right sort of force quickly for a range of possible operations.
The key difference about the current initiative is that capabilities are being identified against a specific goal. The countries involved are demonstrating their determination to follow through on the areas of shortfall and deficiency which that process will highlight, so it is a step in a process, not the end of a road. We are perfectly well aware that there are many detailed issues to be followed up both in the European Union and in NATO.
Like others, the United Kingdom has identified a pool of forces and capabilities as its contribution towards the achievement of the headline goal. Those forces provide for a balance across the full range of Petersberg tasks, including the most demanding ones. In the maximum scale operation envisaged at Helsinki—a corps level deployment of up to 60,000 ground troops—the UK land component would be about 12,000 strong. Maritime and air deployments of up to 18 warships and 72 combat aircraft would be made in addition. I set all that out in more detail in my response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) on Monday.
Let me be clear about what the initiative is and what it is not. It is a planning process to ensure a more effective defence effort by European forces. It is a mechanism to improve European contributions to NATO and to ensure that European nations can in future play a more effective part in alliance operations. It will encourage more efficient and targeted defence spending by our European friends, and it will ensure that, when NATO is not engaged, the European Union can act effectively in a wide range of peace support operations, if and when its member nations want it to.
It is not a European army, or even a standing rapid reaction force. It is not an agreement to give up or to reduce Britain's sovereign control over British forces, and it is not a commitment to undertake operations that we would not previously have wished to take part in. It is not, therefore, a new burden on our armed forces. Those who have said that either do not understand what is happening, or deliberately seek to mislead for reasons of political opportunism.
The success of our armed forces in co-operating with our partners and allies deserves better. The Opposition should be ashamed of themselves for trying to use our armed forces to further their anti-European obsessions.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: What we should have been given today was a reasoned outline of the arguments in favour of the complete nonsense created by the Government. What the Secretary of State gave us—and it demeans his office—was a political rant in support of a Prime Minister in retreat over a policy U-turn that he made two years ago.
The reality is that the Secretary of State at no point bothered to answer the key question that he has failed to answer for the last year and a half, during which it was asked endlessly. What is this all for? The right hon. Gentleman says that it is for low-level peacekeeping tasks, as envisaged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) at Petersberg. But what do the others say? The French do not see it like that at all. Alain Richard says:
We could increase the strength of the deployable forces. The land component should allow us to deal with two simultaneous crises, including a high intensity one with a long term requirement for forces. The ability of the sea and airlift components to project forces and carry out deep strikes would be significantly increased. Here we could envisage an army corps supplemented by 6 to 7 brigades and 600 to 700 aircraft including 400 to 450 combat aircraft.
So that is to aid the civil power—a Petersberg task, just to help the police to get on with their operations in a difficult area? I think not.
Perhaps we should now consider what was said just last weekend in a briefing to German newspapers. It is not what the Government choose to say here. Die Welt,


for instance, featured a headline stating: "The EU Army prepares itself for crises in Asia and Africa." The paper said:
The European Union plans to inform the world of a new Super-Army for heavily armed Military deployments in a radius of 4,000 km from Brussels. That will include large parts of Africa, the Middle East and the Caucasus.
That, in essence, is what those newspapers are being told.
The reality is that the Government are in denial. They have been in denial since the beginning of the process, because they did not start it for the purposes for which they now say that they started it. Why, following the creation of an organisation that apparently supports the Petersberg tasks, is it necessary to have available 100,000 soldiers on standby, 400 aircraft and 100 combat ships to back it up?
Furthermore, as the right hon. Gentleman should know—he may not have discovered it yet; if so, he should do his homework a bit better—if a soldier is deployed in the field he must be backed up, which would require another two for every one deployed. So we are now talking about 200,000 troops in deployment, and we are confronted with a completely different argument.
There is another point with which the right hon. Gentleman did not deal—a point that is not for the Petersberg tasks. Why does the right hon. Gentleman need a structure that is completely separate from NATO, and mirrors NATO? It includes a European military committee, a political committee, a security committee, European military staff, European intelligence and logistics support, and a headline goal that competes with that of NATO.
The reality is this. What the Secretary of State did not say is that the ambitions and proposals for this operation are far grander than he would want to let on.
There is another point about which the right hon. Gentleman did not say much. What about the European nations which are not members of EU, but which have been strong and firm members of NATO? This is not just about Europe; it is about the EU. Here we have nations such as Norway, the Czech republic, Poland, Hungary and Turkey, all in support. Yesterday, panicking about the idea that they were so far out of the proposal, the Government tossed them a scrap. They said, in effect, "You can come in if you want—when we ask you: when we call you. You will not be in from the word go, you are not members of the EU, and you cannot be involved in the planning process, so you will come in when we want." That is the key. That is why the Turkish ambassador said today "Frankly, this does not work at all."
So, we ask ourselves what the policy is all about. It is simply about a Government who dare not speak of their great love—their love to join the euro—which was rebuffed in 1998. Back in 1997, when the Government were considering the problem and the Prime Minister still thought that he would be able to join the euro, the Prime Minister said:
getting Europe heard more clearly in the world will not be achieved through merging the European Union and the Western European Union or developing an unrealistic common defence policy.
That was the Government's position in 1997-98.
The change came in December 1998, when the Prime Minister realised that the game was up for his entry to the euro and that he needed to show his friends and allies in Europe that he was a good European. He offered them the proposed arrangement, regardless of its impact.
When the Prime Minister wants to know what other European countries think about the policy, he should perhaps remember why they are so keen about it. Joschka Fischer said:
it means an important step for the development of the European security and defence identity, another pillar of the process of European unification.
Mr. Jospin said:
By bringing its armed forces closer together and through its continuing commitment to peace and respect for international law, Europe must be able to complete that process.
Over there, they know what this is all about, and they say it every single day: over here, we have a Government who are in denial. The previous Government vetoed such an arrangement. The previous Government knew that the Petersberg tasks did not require a European Union organisation that would be a mirror image of NATO, discriminate against the east Europeans, dilute the forces available to NATO and duplicate NATO's organisation. The previous Government knew that, and the previous Prime Minister knew that. When he first started, even the current Prime Minister knew it.
Like everything else, however, we cannot trust this Prime Minister or this Government. When the opportunity comes, they will do a U-turn and change their mind as it suits them. That is the truth of this Government.

Mr. Hoon: Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to take the shadow Defence Secretary seriously on any matter that has the word Europe or European at the beginning. Sitting behind him are any number of right. hon. and hon. Members who consistently supported the then Government's line on Maastricht. When we were in opposition, Labour Members watched the current shadow Defence Secretary split his own party on Maastricht by consistently voting against his own Government, over and over again.
As I said in my statement, the hon. Gentleman has the merit of consistency: he consistently opposed Maastricht and all that it contained. That is not true of the Leader of the Opposition, who supported it at the time. Now, in opposition, for reasons of political opportunism, the Leader of the Opposition has chosen to change his view on common European defence. That gives the House, and indeed the country, a real insight into the current state of the Conservative party—which consistently opposes anything European. It also consistently turns any argument to that direction.
I am accused of not doing my homework by someone who talks about having 100,000 ground troops on standby—there is no reference to that. The reality is that we have committed to achieving a capability that could, if necessary, deploy rapidly. That is the whole point of the process—[Interruption.]
The shadow Defence Secretary scoffs. He is scoffing at the lessons learned from Kosovo—at documents published for and debated in the House—where we could not deploy rapidly in the crisis and were heavily dependent on the United States. Why should we not be able to deploy our own European forces together?
The shadow Defence Secretary also talks about 200,000 troops being on standby as a back-up. He should know full well that, when we rotate troops to a crisis, we have those troops available. Those troops are available to go to Kosovo. The reality is that 80 per cent. of the forces
currently in Kosovo are of European origin. The reality is that, when we had the time to deploy, we were able to achieve that. What we were not able to do was to get those forces into a theatre quickly.
As for the 15 non-EU member states, they were present at the meeting; they were there on Tuesday. They offered their own forces as a contribution to the headline goal. So not only are the Conservatives absolutely determined to be isolated in the European Union, they are also determined to be isolated among 30 states that are prepared to participate in the process. The shadow Defence Secretary really gave the game away when he talked about people who are doing things for the United Kingdom as being "over there". That is his and his party's perception of Europe—Brussels acting against the Conservative party, against the narrow isolationist position of those who, in opposition, cannot see the benefits of European co-operation and are acting totally inconsistently with the actions of the previous Government, whom many of them supported at the time.

Mr. Bruce George: When the Opposition spokesman asked what this was all about, why did my right hon. Friend not let the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, who is a trained shrink, tell him that it is more about paranoia, xenophobia and election fever than rationality?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who puts the case very well.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I welcome the statement and suggest to the Defence Secretary that he might take the opportunity, politely but firmly, to remind the cold war warriors—military and political—however distinguished, that Europe's defence needs today are rather different from our requirements in the days of the cold war and the Berlin wall? Is it not realistic in the light of recent experience, in particular the terms in which the presidential election was conducted in the United States, to assume that we cannot expect the United States to be willing in all circumstances to come to the assistance of Europe in conflicts such as Kosovo and Bosnia and that Europe must have the capacity to deal with such matters?
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that there will be total transparency between NATO and the European Union in any European operation, but may I seek a further assurance? Will he use his every endeavour to ensure that the United Kingdom and all others who have pledged forces on paper during the past two or three days meet those commitments in reality?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. His implied criticism of the Conservative Opposition would have further force if it were not for the fact that, in government, they set in train the process of improving European defence capability, not simply in an EU context, but in the context of NATO and the EU through amendments to the Maastricht treaty to which they signed up. Former Conservative Ministers, now sitting on the Opposition Benches, agreed to that in the context of the Maastricht treaty.
What is important about the work in which we are engaged is the review mechanism. We need to ensure that those who offered forces offer forces of the right kind and the right quality that are capable of rapid deployment. That is a significant step forward in the operation of multinational organisations. In the past, we have not had an effective checking mechanism that has worked as we would have liked, but we are going to get that out of this process.

Mr. John Major: Is the Secretary of State aware that on many strategic issues since the last election I have either supported the Government or remained silent, conscious of their mandate? I have always favoured European co-operation on defence, as did the last Government, but only and exclusively as the European arm of the NATO alliance. The present proposals are not the same as that; they are totally different and wholly mistaken. Can the Secretary of State not understand some of the dangers? Can he not understand that what is proposed has no military logic? It adds not one iota of additional capacity. It offers no secure chain of command and, in my judgment, it will undermine NATO. The danger is that it may weaken the United States' traditional commitment to Europe. The Americans may well say to themselves, "Why should we ever contribute troops in future to a European regional conflict when Europe boasts an army of 60,000 men?"
Equally dangerously, the Secretary of State might reflect that, over time, what is proposed may even begin to erode our security arrangements with the United States which the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary will know about, which have worked immeasurably to the advantage of the United Kingdom.
The fact is that this is a political proposal, and an unwise one. Those of us in the previous Government would not have made it. The Secretary of State and the Government know that. The right hon. Gentleman has tried to hide behind a grotesque distortion of our policy, which is not what I would have expected from him.
The proposal comes from the Prime Minister. Where is he? He should have been here. The Prime Minister has blundered into a misconceived political proposal that should never have been made. It is profoundly not in our national interest, and should be dropped without delay—even if to do so might embarrass the Prime Minister.

Mr. Hoon: I am sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman speak in those terms. When I first arrived in the House, I watched him—week in, week out, and month in, month out—struggle with the sort of people who now sit on the Tory Front Bench. They consistently opposed the right hon. Gentleman's policy on Europe.
We are talking about the Conservative party's obsessions with Europe. The right hon. Gentleman struggled manfully, week in and week out, with the very people who now speak for his party on Europe. I am sorry that he should argue that the policy on European defence for which he signed up involved only a European arm of NATO, as that is not what the Maastricht treaty says. He considered that treaty carefully, and I recall with some admiration how he took the House through its details.
Article J4 of the Maastricht treaty makes no reference to NATO and its European arm. It talks about the common foreign and security policy of the European


Union, and about the eventual framing of a common defence policy that might, in time, lead to common defence. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon signed up to that treaty, which contains no reference to NATO.
The right hon. Gentleman made a second point about the headline goal, the purpose of which is to achieve extra military capability. The House has debated on a number of occasions the deficiencies of the Kosovo campaign. The key deficiency was that we were not able to get European forces into that theatre sufficiently quickly. The headline goal is all about improving that deficiency, and thereby improving European military capability.
Thirdly, as I said in my statement, the United States Administration, at every level, have consistently supported the proposals, and have said so. I am sorry that the former Prime Minister should wish to avoid the fact that every senior figure in the US supports what we are doing.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. The Government are taking a constructive and wise course that represents the only way for European countries to co-operate properly to overcome some of the problems encountered in the Balkans and the occasional reluctance of the United States Government to intervene.
I have two questions for my right hon. Friend. First, the new structure will absorb many of the institutions and defence structures of the Western European Union. What will happen to the WEU's remaining obligations under the Brussels treaty?
Secondly, the new structure lacks provision for adequate international parliamentary scrutiny. The European Parliament cannot perform that scrutiny as not all the countries supplying troops will be EU members. However, national Parliaments will not be able to scrutinise matters properly either. How does my right hon. Friend propose to replace the Parliamentary Assembly of the WEU?

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members to be brief. I made that request at Prime Minister's questions, and this statement is no different.

Mr. Hoon: I thank my hon. Friend for his carefully thought out observations, but I disagree with him in one particular. National Parliaments will still have a significant role in assessing their Governments' contributions to any European-type operations. As I made clear, it will be for a British Prime Minister to decide whether British forces should be committed to a particular operation, even if that operation were to be led by the European Union. Quite rightly, therefore, the matter will still be one for debate in Parliament.
As for the Parliamentary Assembly and parliamentary scrutiny at the European level, those matters are for the parliamentarians themselves. The Government have made it quite clear that we would welcome suggestions on how such European scrutiny could be continued.

Mr. Tom King: The Secretary of State has chosen an unusual way to try to lower the temperature on this issue. The extremely party political way in which he introduced the proposals has not been at all helpful.

Competing structures will be set up—whatever the apparent safeguards—and that is precisely why we did not agree in the past; my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) is right. The matter is even more grave at a time of serious overstretch in our forces—competing structures would be extremely damaging.
The Secretary of State cites the present American Administration. Has he noticed that one gentleman—Mr. Cheney—who knows as much about defence and the value of NATO as anybody and who may well be the next Vice—President, has expressed his serious concern about the proposal as a threat to NATO?

Mr. Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman uses the word "overstretch". I am disappointed to hear the word in this context, because I assume that he would not use it in the context of a commitment of forces to NATO or indeed to the United Nations—[Interruption.] I am being barracked from Conservative Front—Bench Members, who are shouting "over and above". The reality is that we have one set of forces whom we use once. As I made clear, it will thus always be the case that the British Prime Minister of the day will take a decision in the light of prevailing circumstances—that must include the demands on our armed forces at the time—as to whether we will participate in a particular operation. That is no different from the situation that would arise in relation to a NATO operation or if we were asked for support for a UN-led operation. The word "overstretch" has no relevance in this issue, because we do not have standing forces, waiting for a so-called Petersberg operation. Instead, we have a commitment that we can make them available, if we are able to do so at the time.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What have the Government in Prague, whose forces have played such a valuable role in Kosovo, said about the proposals?

Mr. Hoon: A number of EU-aspirant countries were present at the meeting on Tuesday, which I have mentioned. They have indicated their willingness to participate and the type of forces that they would make available, so they are strongly in support of the initiative.

Sir Archie Hamilton: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a growing isolationist movement in the USA? Does he think that these initiatives will encourage or discourage those isolationists?

Mr. Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman knows well that, over a long period, there have been debates in the United States as to the extent to which they should or should not be engaged in providing European security. My strong view is that, unless European nations are willing to take more responsibility for their own security—to strengthen the European pillar of NATO—isolationist tendencies in the US would be fuelled. A strong argument in the US is that the US electorate should not fund European security. I can understand that, so it is right that European nations should try to do better and try to do more. That is precisely what this initiative is about.

Mr. Tony Worthington: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. I realise that the initiative relates mainly to defence, but it would also help in humanitarian responses to disasters.
In Mozambique, the British response was wonderful—magnificent; the European response was patchy and the NATO response was nil. At one stage, we were held up by the non-availability of an Antonov plane to transport helicopters to Mozambique. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in future, when lives are being lost and when only military capacity can deliver the means to save them, such an initiative can provide a response for the good?

Mr. Hoon: The Petersberg tasks include humanitarian assistance. Clearly, one of the lessons that successive Governments have realised that they needed to learn was about the provision of heavylift capacity, by both air and sea. That is precisely why the Labour Government—not a previous Government—have invested so much money in providing that capacity by air and sea. It will fulfil the needs described by my hon. Friend.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Will the Secretary of State accept that, although I was one of those Members who voted against almost every clause of the Maastricht treaty, I have never been opposed to close military co-operation with our European friends within NATO? May I remind him that my first political master, Anthony Eden, formed the view as early as 1937, that a second world war was unavoidable unless the United States could be heavily involved in European affairs, and that it was because Neville Chamberlain, out of hand, repudiated a secret telegram from President Roosevelt offering to intervene that Eden resigned as Foreign Secretary?
The Secretary of State knows perfectly well, does he not, that the French have long wanted to weaken European co-operation with the United States in NATO, and that this whole project is a French design to weaken Anglo-American NATO co-operation?

Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that for a moment. In answer to a number of questions that have arisen, I am absolutely convinced that, by strengthening the European pillar of NATO, we are strengthening NATO.

Ms Rachel Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that of all the things we could do, the one that is most likely to weaken the American commitment to Europe and encourage isolationism is to listen to the anti-Europe isolationist rantings of the Conservative party, and to continue to allow the European nations to sit back and expect America to take the greatest burden of NATO operations and peacekeeping tasks?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is about time that we had some answers from the Conservatives as to why they failed to strengthen European defence capability within NATO during their 18 years in office?

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend makes several telling points. As I spent the last two and a half days in Brussels and in Germany, I must tell the Conservatives that their political friends and allies on the continent are beginning to despair of the attitudes that they are now striking. Those attitudes may well simply be fuelled by the prospect of a general election—they may be no more than cheap political opportunism—but they are completely inconsistent with the position that they took in

government. The test that must be applied to them is: can they remain consistent while in government and when moving to opposition? In reality, they are completely failing in that.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that for the Opposition to question these proposals is in some way anti-European is grotesque, and is deeply resented by the Opposition.
Everyone agrees that the Europeans need to do more for defence, a policy pursued with great vigour by my right hon. Friends the Members for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) when he was Secretary of State for Defence, but always under the umbrella of NATO. Why, then, is there the need, other than to play a great political card, to undertake these proposals outside the NATO umbrella, thus duplicating the most effective peacetime military alliance of all time? In view of the right hon. Gentleman's quotation of Secretary Cohen, may I refer him to what Mr. Cohen said at Birmingham on 10 October this year? He said that it would be highly ineffective, seriously wasteful of resources and contradictory to the basic principles of the close NATO-EU co-operation that we hope to establish, if NATO and the EU were to proceed along the path of relying on autonomous force-planning structures. Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with that?

Mr. Hoon: But that is absolutely right. We are not relying on autonomous force-planning structures. We have made it absolutely clear—and I have made it absolutely clear in my statement—that there will be complete transparency. There will be no duplication of those planning resources. That has been agreed by all those who signed up to this process. A number of right hon. and hon. Members are shaking their heads. It is in the agreement. It has been decided. It is no good for the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) to quote the United States Secretary of Defence out of context as a way of seeking to validate his own prejudices.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Members for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) for the work that they did in government to promote European defence. I said that they took the process ahead and moved it along—we are simply taking it further. However, it is not true to say that their work was carried out solely in a NATO context. The Maastricht treaty was not a NATO treaty; it was a treaty of the European Union.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the biggest threat to the future of NATO comes not from Europe, but from the political platform of the Republican party in the United States and the desire of many people there to reduce its military involvement in Europe? Is it therefore not prudent for us to make preparations so that, if we face difficulties in future, we, as Europeans, can act on our continent to increase and enhance our security and to deal with crises as they arise?

Mr. Hoon: In answer to an earlier question, I made it clear that there has been a considerable debate over a long period in the United States as to the extent to which it should be committed to defending European security. There are those in the United States who argue that it should not spend a single cent of US taxpayers' dollars


on defending Europe. I am delighted that that view will not prevail. However, to resist that argument, it is important that European nations do more. That is precisely what the proposal is about.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The Secretary of State would be very wise not to parrot the phrase that those who are opposed to the policy that he has announced are isolationist or xenophobic. I strongly resent such an attack. In fact, it only underlines his own experience in the matter—he seems more and more to parrot the phrases of the Prime Minister.
Does the Secretary of State understand that many of us are totally opposed to the concept—which is enshrined in the documents—that we should find a European defence community well embedded as a European enterprise that would ultimately be responsible, as it develops, to a European Parliament? If the Secretary of State thinks that those are the views of europhobes, let me quote the views of the chairman of the foreign relations committee of the Czech Parliament and of a Polish member of the national defence committee of the Polish Parliament. They say that it
appears more and more that this EU defence project has less to do with rebalancing capabilities and more to do with political separation.
I have just attended a conference in Berlin of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and I know that that view is echoed by many people in eastern and western Europe.

Mr. Hoon: Conservative Members have quoted different people from the United States in the same way as the hon. Gentleman has quoted figures from European countries. I entirely accept that some people in all countries will resist the proposals and will say that they are not sensible. However, the hon. Gentleman cannot cite a single figure from the Governments in any of the 30 states represented around the table on Tuesday, the United States or Canada who is opposed to what we are trying to achieve—strengthening the European pillar of NATO by strengthening NATO itself.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Although I accept the need for an enhanced European defence capacity, will the Secretary of State answer the question that has been pressed on him by many right hon. and hon. Members? Why cannot that enhanced capacity be achieved within the framework of NATO? He has not dealt with that question fully or properly, so will he please do so now?

Mr. Hoon: I made it clear in my statement that the proposals can and will be implemented in the framework of NATO and in support for the common security policy of the European Union. However, they will not involve any duplication of forces or planning. That is why we have made clear the need for full transparency between the European Union's processes and those of NATO. If we are to deploy the single forces that we have available to those bodies, there must be absolute consistency between the two approaches. That is clear. It is what I said in my statement, so it should not be a surprise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. William Cash: If there are operations in which NATO as a whole is not engaged and we are,

therefore, operating under the Feira summit arrangements with the European Union acting in an autonomous fashion in an international crisis, the policies that are pursued will be inconsistent, by definition, with the fact that NATO as a whole is not engaged and will mean the United States takes a different view. In such a case, what arrangements will be put in place to deal with questions of military intelligence of the kind that were raised during the Falklands war?

Mr. Hoon: The phrase, "NATO as a whole is not engaged", has been included to deal with the situation described by the hon. Gentleman. It would allow access to NATO assets and capabilities by an autonomous European Union force when NATO as a whole is not engaged. That was agreed at Washington by the NATO nations.

Mr. Michael Howard: The Secretary of State has acknowledged that greater European defence co-operation, which is entirely welcome, could take place within NATO. Does he accept that that was the Government's policy until the 1998 St. Malo agreement? Why was that policy changed?

Mr. Hoon: That policy has not changed. I made it clear in my statement that this agreement is a development of not only this Government's policy but the previous Government's policy, which he supported.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I am sure that we can all agree on one thing: if forces—men and material—are committed on operations to the European force, they are not available to NATO, the UN or to act in our national interests. The Secretary of State failed to explain in his long statement why it is in our national interest to fritter away already overstretched forces.

Mr. Hoon: We are not doing that. Any international deployment of British forces would have to be reviewed carefully if a direct threat to Britain's vital national interest arose. That would be the case for deployment in the context of NATO or the UN. If there were a threat to the United Kingdom, we would withdraw those forces where necessary. That is the position already. We are not changing it at all.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, when we finally borrow the four wide-bodied jets from the Americans, they will be the only ones this side of the pond, so the force can go nowhere without American support?

Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman knows—at least, I thought he knew, because he has served on the Defence Committee—that a number of heavylift assets are available to us. We will be augmenting those by the lease of C-17s and the construction of the A400M. Frankly, he could have more vigorously criticised his Government for failing to take those decisions, certainly during the five years when he was a Member of the House under that Government. The reality is that we have taken those decisions and those assets will be increasingly available to us.

Mr. John Maples: The tone of the Secretary of State's statement and his response to
questions has been a disgrace. If people needed proof that this agreement was all about European politics and nothing to do with defence, they have had it this afternoon.
When the policy U-turn was announced two years ago, Madeleine Albright set three tests: that there should be no duplication of expensive military assets, no discrimination against non-European Union members of NATO and no risk of decoupling the United States from the defence of Europe. The Government have, I believe, breached all three, and the development risks seriously undermining NATO.

Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman would have heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister quote the United States Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, in response to Monday's meeting. I have also quoted her, and she was eminently satisfied. All three tests were satisfied; all three tests were achieved. That is why it is important that Britain continues to lead the way on European defence.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Secretary of State accept that many Conservative Members have been fighting for 20 years and more to support NATO, irrespective of their views on the European Union? Does he also accept that it is a not normal for a Government continually to push the Chief of the Defence Staff to endorse their political positions? As they have chosen to do so, will the Secretary of State comment on what the Chief of the Defence Staff said a few days ago in answer to a question from a Member of Parliament who asked why anything that could be done outside the NATO structure could not be done within its structure?
I suppose it could have been done within the NATO framework and in some ways it would have been easier.
But, he went on:
It was decided by the EU governments that this was the way it would be done.
What will be achieved outside the NATO structure that could not have been achieved within it?

Mr. Hoon: Let me deal first with the hon. Gentleman's point about the Chief of the Defence Staff. I should make it absolutely clear that nobody pushes the Chief of the Defence Staff forward—absolutely no one. I have far too much respect for a man whom the Conservative party appointed when in government ever to push him forward to deal with any issue. He chooses to comment when he chooses to comment. Certainly—perhaps this is the hon. Gentleman's difficulty—he has consistently supported the idea of more effective European co-operation. He —ecognises that that is good for the armed forces and their ability to participate in crisis missions.

Mr. David Curry: As the British armed forces appear to be out of date and under repair or, in the case of their equipment, late in delivery, and their men, women and machines are under immense stress, what specific commitments have been given by continental Governments on their forces' equipment, so that if their forces are used they can be well equipped with compatible equipment? Will he cite an example of

where the force might act in the event of American disapproval? If the force did not have such approval, would it be capable of acting?

Mr. Hoon: I assume that the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's comments referred to the recent Public Accounts Committee report. If he studies that carefully, he will find that nearly every aspect of criticism relates to projects begun under the previous Conservative Government. We are trying to resolve the delays that are inherent in the process of procurement from that time. Indeed, the PAC report indicates that there is now progress in that respect and, indeed, congratulates the Government on the steps that they are taking.
On the capability question, I said in response to a previous question that one change that we have negotiated in the present European process is a much more effective mechanism for reviewing contributions from all participants, to ensure that they are genuinely rapidly deployable forces and have the qualities that are required to participate in such a force. So, there is a step change in improvement in the way in which we can take forward the capability.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Why was the language of the statement so defensive? Why did the statement seem to have been composed on the back of an envelope? Why is the red line behind the Secretary of State so very thin?

Mr. Hoon: If the language was defensive—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Offensive."] I apologise if I misheard the right hon. Gentleman. I certainly did not intend the language to be offensive to him. He has always approached these matters extremely courteously. We are seeking to address the real issues, but there are those on his Front Bench who would mislead the public by trying to present a completely misrepresented account of what we are trying to negotiate. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman if he was offended by the tone of my remarks, but I do not necessarily extend that to the Conservative Front-Bench team.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Secretary of State knows that the Governments of the United States and Canada have been as anxious as everyone else to achieve greater co-operation and European contribution to defence in NATO. He knows that we have been negotiating for years, trying to use NATO's capabilities and planning process to enable Europeans to make such a contribution themselves. That could have been achieved in NATO. Who decided that it could not? Was it the Americans and the Canadians or our European partners?

Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my statement. I made it clear that the process is being taken forward in both NATO—NATO recognises the importance of rapidly deployable forces—and the EU. A consistent planning process will be available to both in order to achieve our objective: no duplication of assets and resources.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Why should neutral Ireland, Austria, Sweden and Finland be more closely involved with the decision making on whether to use or deploy the force than NATO Iceland,


Norway, Turkey, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland? Is not the proposal deeply divisive for European security and thoroughly retrograde? Will the right hon. Gentleman encourage the neutrals to sign up to the mutual security provisions of the Brussels treaty?

Mr. Hoon: Unfortunately for the hon. Gentleman's observation, representatives of all the countries that he mentioned sat around a table on Tuesday offering their forces as part of the process. Indeed, Turkey has made a substantial contribution and indicated how vigorously it wished to participate. I am afraid that the premise of the hon. Gentleman's argument simply does not work. With regard to the neutral states, they have many of the forces that are useful for the range of Petersberg tasks and precisely the kind of humanitarian work envisaged at Petersberg. The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Secretary of State was being utterly candid when he said that the initiative was only one step in the process on the road ahead. Can he say how long he thinks it will be before we move from national troops committed to a European corps, to a European army with troops regardless of their nationality?

Mr. Hoon: I have made it clear that we are not discussing a European army. The process was begun by the previous Conservative Administration and carried on by the Government.

Honours and Decorations

Mr. Fraser Kemp: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the award of certain honours and decorations; and for connected purposes.
I begin by clarifying two points. First, the Bill will not affect military honours currently awarded for gallantry. Secondly, it will not alter the current arrangements for another place.
The Bill will replace the arcane panoply of honours currently available, from knighthoods to baronetcies, from the Order of St. Patrick to the Thistle, the Star of India, the Order of the Indian Empire, and various others. Some of those are still technically in existence, but they have not been awarded in decades. One of them, incidentally, is available only to members of one religious faith in Britain. That is hardly a sign of a multi-faith nation or a society that cherishes many different faiths.
I shall concentrate on the 90 per cent. of honours that are awarded, usually twice yearly—the honours of the British empire, which are given in three categories. They often seem to be awarded on the grounds of a person's rank, occupation or status in society. Such an outdated system does no credit to a nation that has just entered a new millennium. Any nation, and Britain in particular, should strive to break down social divisions, not reinforce them by clinging to an honours system that is based on an empire which, whether we like it or not, ceased to exist several decades ago.
I have no problem with some form of formal recognition to celebrate and reward people who make society a better place, and who work unstintingly for others, often with no reward to themselves. I agree that those people should be recognised, but that recognition should be based purely on their contribution to society.
I pose a series of questions to the House with regard to the current honours system. How are we to quantify public service, or judge one person's contribution to society as more important than that of someone else? Why should we honour a first-rate diplomat and ambassador about whom many of us have not heard, rather than an exceptional nurse who has looked after people throughout a professional career?
Why should one grade of honour be awarded rather than another? How can we make a judgment about television presenters or celebrities, and whether they should receive an honour of one grade rather than another? The same applies to authors—ultimately, a literary judgment would have to be made, which I am not sure the honours unit, the Prime Minister or anyone else is qualified to make. How are such gradations to be made? We need to examine that closely.
Many people are often offended when an industrialist, for example, who might or might not have donated money to a political party, ends up with a much higher grade honour than tireless charity workers and many others who work so hard. Such judgments are arbitrary within the current system, make no sense and offend many people. The system is not enhanced by its gradations; indeed, they often bring the entire system into disrepute and confusion.
I want to see an across-the-board honour rather than honours that reflect the past. We are in the 21st century, and we should be moving on. We could look to other
Commonwealth nations, such as Canada, Australia and Jamaica, which have abolished the British honours system. Australia has replaced the various honours that were available with one simple Order of Australia. Whether someone worked in the outback as a postman for 40 years or was Prime Minister, he is proud to receive the Order of Australia. We could learn much from other Commonwealth countries that have adopted a different approach.
We should replace the present panoply of honours with an Order of the United Kingdom. That should be the way in which this country honours its worthiest members. I think that recipients would be proud to receive the honour. It would be awarded on the basis of what someone has done to make society a better place, irrespective of where he stands in the pecking order.
The Bill would enable the number of nominations received from the public to be increased. At present, less than 50 per cent. of the honours awarded bi-annually are the result of public nominations. We should ensure that the percentage increases. The rest of the nominations are made by a mixture of businesses, national organisations, Government Departments and the Prime Minister's office. We need radically to change the balance to ensure that nominations are made by many more people.
I accept that changes have been made, particularly in 1993. I welcome those changes, but we need to move a step further. As we enter the new millennium, I believe that the symbols of public recognition should be changed. Symbols are important because they often send out a message about the society in which we want to live. We should not tolerate systems that continue to reinforce divisions in society. I am reminded of what Barbara Castle said when she was Secretary of State for Transport.
The most outrageous feature about the Honours System was that it reflected the system of social stratification and snobbery in this country. One of my most embarrassing jobs as a Minister was to present
certain honours
to railwaymen and other members of the lower orders
who were not deemed important enough to go to the Palace for their investiture.
Changes have been made, as I have said, and in all sincerity I congratulate the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who made some important steps forward. The medal to which Barbara Castle was referring was one that he abolished. As far as I can ascertain, he is the only Prime Minister of the previous century to abolish an honour. The steps that he took were in the right direction, but we must ensure that we move a step further and have an honours system that is more in common with the meritocratic democracy in which we live, rather than one that is linked to the past.
Before anyone accuses me of flying in the face of history, the reality is that 99 per cent. of the honours that are awarded every year are inventions that cover about a century. Some of them have a certain mediaeval flavour about them, but in reality they were created in Queen Victoria's reign and in the early part of the 19th century. Some honours date back a number of centuries, but 99 per cent. of what we do every year date from about a century ago. We should honour those members of society who have made that contribution. This is about the honours that we represent and our values in Britain today, not those of yesteryear.
I ask the House to support the measure, as it is time for a radical overhaul. The House has come a long way since it blew the gaff on Lloyd George, who famously sold knighthoods for £10,000, baronetcies for £40,000 and peerages for about £100,000. A lot has changed since then, but we need to make sure that we change the current system, which is indefensible. I therefore ask the House to support the measure.

Mr. Eric Forth: I cannot make up my mind whether the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) is off-message or trailing for Tony. I shall seek to divide the House on the matter, so we shall soon find out whether the hon. Gentleman, who is always described in the media as being close to Tony, knows something that he is not telling us about or is seriously off-message and will not be close to Tony after today.
The proposal is as about as typical of new Labour as one can get. It is a mindless assault on tradition, our heritage and history, as well as a blundering and ill-considered attempt to sweep away things that are well understood, if not by the hon. Gentleman and his friends, at least by the vast majority of people in this country. Surely, the acid test of whether the current honours system is appropriate is the pleasure with which people accept honours. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to patronise people who happily accept various honours, but he seems to have given no thought to those recipients who, when they accept, are honoured—and say so—and make no secret of the fact that they are delighted. They reveal the great pleasure that they take in being recognised in many different ways.
We heard a lot of nonsense about a class-ridden society. Surely, the fact that our new Speaker hails, as I do, from a tenement in Glasgow tells us that our society has long since left behind the blind prejudices that obsess the hon. Gentleman and his friends, and has become genuinely open. Our beloved Deputy Prime Minister used to serve drinks on a cruise liner, but that was no barrier to him achieving one of the highest offices in the land, and we must all welcome that. However, along comes the hon. Gentleman with his narrow, obsessive ideology, determined to sweep away things that are loved, respected and honoured throughout the country, including our well-established honours system. He then blunders in with something called the Order of the United Kingdom.
For goodness' sake, what is the point of doing that apart from sheer mindless destruction, for which the Government have become rather too well known? [Interruption.] The Government are prepared to sweep away large parts of our constitution and well-understood elements of our electoral arrangements, and they want to introduce confusing, muddled and irrelevant things. I heard the clack of hon. Members surrounding the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington talking about equality.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Fairness.

Mr. Forth: Or fairness, as the hon. Gentleman says. I should have thought that any system that requires judgment by one person on another will either be accepted as fair or condemned as unfair, almost regardless of what it does.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington, East said that his proposal would not affect military awards.

Mr. Kemp: Gallantry awards.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman must accept that gallantry awards inevitably require one person to judge other people's achievements and contributions. Any system of recognition requires that. I have not noticed any reticence from the Government about using the honours system, whether to award peerages to contributors to the Labour party or to the endless succession of luvvies who stream through No. 10 and go out smiling, having been given some sort of award. The hon. Gentleman's own Government, through their actions over the past three and a half years, have demonstrated that they are very keen on the existing awards system. I do not particularly blame them for that or for following in Lloyd George's footsteps, if that is how they feel that they should conduct themselves. I do not blame them for the luvvies either, to whom they are welcome as far as I am concerned.
The truth is that the measure reveals much more about the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party today than it does about the honours system. The hon. Gentleman has a twisted and bitter approach to these matters which simply is not shared by the thousands of people who, every year, happily accept well-deserved honours and recognition through our existing honours system.
Had the hon. Gentleman given us many examples of people who had been offended or upset by the offer of an honour, I might have been a bit more impressed, but he has not. He has come at this from an ideological point of view. He has demonstrated that he and his party are all about the destruction of our institutions, heritage, traditions and history. We must have none of it and I call on my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject this ill-thought-out and bitter motion today.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 58.

Division No. 350]
[4.45 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Ainger, Nick
Cann, Jamie


Allan, Richard
Cawsey, Ian


Ashton, Joe
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Chaytor, David


Baker, Norman
Chidgey, David


Ballard, Jackie
Clapham, Michael


Banks, Tony
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Barnes, Harry
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cohen, Harry


Bennett, Andrew F
Connarty, Michael


Bermingham, Gerald
Cotter, Brian


Best, Harold
Crausby, David


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Brake, Tom
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Brand, Dr Peter
Cummings, John


Breed, Colin
Dalyell, Tam


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Burgon, Colin
Davidson, Ian


Burstow, Paul
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dismore, Andrew


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank





Donohoe, Brian H
McWalter, Tony


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
McWilliam, John


Efford, Clive
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Ennis, Jeff
Mallabar, Judy


Etherington, Bill
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Feam, Ronnie
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Flynn, Paul
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Follett, Barbara
Mitchell, Austin


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)



Galloway, George
Mountford, Kali


Gapes, Mike
Mudie, George


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Gibson, Dr Ian
Olner, Bill


Gidley, Sandra
Organ, Mrs Diana


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Pollard, Kerry


Godman, Dr Norman A
Pound, Stephen


Godsiff, Roger
Prosser, Gwyn


Golding, Mrs Llin
Rendel, David


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Ruane, Chris


Hancock, Mike
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Harris, Dr Evan
Sanders, Adrian


Healey, John
Sawford, Phill


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Shaw, Jonathan


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Sheerman, Barry


Hepburn, Stephen
Shipley, Ms Debra


Hinchliffe, David
Skinner, Dennis


Hope, Phil
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Smith, Liew (Blaenau Gwent)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Steinberg, Gerry


Illsley, Eric
Stevensopn, George


Jenkins, Brian
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Stunell, Andrew


Jones, Ms Jenny
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Taylor, David (NW, Leics)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Trickett, Jon


Kemp, Fraser
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Khabra, Piara S
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Tyler, Paul


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Webb, Steve


Lammy, David
Welsh, Andrew


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
White, Brian


Lepper, David
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Livsey, Richard
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Winnick, David


Llwyd, Elfyn
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


McDonnell, John
 Wyatt, Derek


McFall, John



McNamara, Kevin
Tellers for the Ayes:


MacShane, Denis
Mr. Ronnie Campbell and


Mactaggart, Fiona
Mr. Denis Murphy




NOES


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
(Rushcliffe)


Beggs, Roy
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bell, Martin (Talton)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Bercow, John
Fox, Dr Liam


Blunt, Crispin
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Gill, Christopher


Brazier, Julian
Gray, James


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Green, Damian


Browning, Mrs Angela
Grieve, Dominic


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Harvey, Nick


Burns, Simon
Hawkins, Nick


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hunter, Andrew


(Chipping Barnet)
Keetch, Paul


Clappison, James
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
(Ross Skye & Inverness W)



Key, Robert






Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Leigh, Edward
Swayne, Desmond


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Loughton, Tim
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Luff, Peter
Tyrie, Andrew


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Waterson, Nigel


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Whitney, Sir Raymond


McLoughlin, Patrick
Whittingdale, John


Moss, Malcolm
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Oaten, Mark
Wilkinson, John


Öpik, Lembit
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Randall, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Redwood, Rt Hon John




Robathan, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes: 


Robertson, Laurence
Mr. Eric Forth and


St Aubyn, Nick
Mr. Douglas Hogg.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Fraser Kemp, Mr. Ronnie Campbell, Mr. Lawrie Quinn, Mr. Alan Keen, Mr. Stephen Hepburn, Mr. Peter Kilfoyle, Mr. Chris Ruane, Mr. David Winnick and Mr. Bob Russell.

HONOURS AND DECORATIONS

Mr. Fraser Kemp accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about the award of certain honours and decorations; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Wednesday 29 November, and to be printed [Bill 186].

Orders of the Day — Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 5. If the House agrees to any of these Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 5

COMPENSATION FOR EXISTING BUSINESSES

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 16, after second ("of") insert ("income and non-income").

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 2, amendments (a) and (b) thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4, Lords amendment No. 5 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto.

Mr. Morley: These amendments relate to the compensation scheme for fur farmers who will be put out of business by the ban on keeping animals coley or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur. In the House and in another place, concerns were raised about the form of the proposed compensation scheme. As I explained at the time, this is an enabling Bill, and it is therefore not appropriate for the full and exact details of the compensation scheme to be included.
The intention is that Ministers will decide on the details of the compensation scheme after Royal Assent, when we have arranged for independent assessors to visit the fur farms to provide information on which a decision about the form of the scheme can be based. I made it clear, however, that the Government accept that fair compensation should be made available to fur farmers.
When the Bill received its Third Reading in the House, clause 5 did not specify whether compensation would include loss of income. That has been a cause for concern both here and in another place. Furthermore, the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation recommended that the Bill should specify whether compensation includes loss of income, on the basis that that had important European convention on human rights implications and should not be left to ministerial discretion.
In the light of both those concerns and the Select Committee's report, the Government decided to table amendments in another place, committing Ministers to include loss of income in the compensation scheme. Thus clause 5(1) will now require the compensation scheme to cover both income and non-income losses incurred as a result of ceasing fur farming because of the enactment or the coming into force of the prohibition in clause 1.
Clause 5(2) will require the scheme to specify the descriptions of income and non-income losses in respect of which payments are to be made and the description of business to be compensated, although the scheme need not provide for all losses to be compensated. Clause 5(3) will provide that the scheme shall specify the basis of the valuation for determining losses; the amounts of the payments to be made, or the basis on which such amounts are to be calculated; and the procedure to be followed in respect of claims under the scheme.
Concerns were raised in the House that the use of the word "may" in clause 5(2) could allow the Government to avoid including the matters set out in that subsection in the compensation scheme. I made it clear at the time that that was never our intention. We have therefore removed any doubt as to the Government's commitment by changing the word "may" to "shall" in clause 5(2).
The full details of the scheme will be subject to a consultation exercise with the industry after Royal Assent and before the order introducing the compensation scheme is made. In another place, my noble Friend, the Minister of State, Baroness Hayman agreed that we would consider setting in motion before Royal Assent the steps needed to draw up a scheme. I should like to thank her for the way in which she dealt with the Bill and guided it through the other place. We have now set the wheels in motion and have written to all the fur farmers and the National Farmers Union, as their representative, seeking their agreement to independent consultants looking at their books. We are trying to speed the process as much as we can before Royal Assent. We await the NFU's response on behalf of fur farmers.
I appreciate that this is a narrow debate, limited to the Lords amendments, but it would be remiss of me not to put on record my thanks to the many hon. Members and Members of the House of Lords who have supported the Bill. It has received enormous support from the public, who have backed it in writing. We should all record our special thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), who promoted the original private Member's Bill that forms the basis of the Government Bill.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: The debate is now drawing to a close on this rather contentious legislation. If one reads the reports of all the Bill's proceedings in both Houses, one does not find much support for it from the vast majority of Members who contributed to the debates. At all stages, compensation was the key issue. Given the weary resignation of fur farmers to the inevitability of the Bill reaching the statute book because of the Government's huge majority, the defence shifted from opposing the Bill in principle to achieving the best possible compensation deal for fur farmers.
From what the Minister said, it seems that the Government are no further down the road of setting the parameters for the compensation calculation. I wonder why the Government have not used the time over the summer recess to work more closely with fur farmers, at least to set some basic parameters and headings on the compensation issue.
If we were to ask the fur farmers whether, under these Lords amendments, they were any wiser about what they could realistically expect as compensation, their answer

would be an unequivocal no. They are no further forward with knowing what their businesses will be worth and how best to plan for their futures.
Is not it true that the amendments were tabled only because the Government took fright at the recommendation of the Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation that the question whether compensation should be included for loss of income, which has important human rights applications, should not be left to ministerial discretion. Thus income and non-income losses are now to be in the Bill, and the word "may" in line 20 is to be changed to "shall." I suppose that we should feel grateful to the Government for those hard-won concessions, but the definition of income losses and the amount of such losses are still unknown quantities.
As was said in the other place, the Government are in uncharted waters, especially in respect of a farming enterprise such as fur farming. The only evidence from valuations in the European Union comes from Austria, where a fur farmer in one of its regions was closed down and paid the equivalent of £390 for each breeding female.
The Government have not moved an inch from their estimate, which was published in the Bill's explanatory memorandum, of some £400,000 earmarked for asset losses and up to four times that figure—£1.6 million—if income losses are included. How does that square with the valuation of one of the fur farming businesses at £5 million worth of forced closure losses? On the basis of the Austrian valuation, the total compensation could be well over double that figure. Have the Government amended their figures on the possible outcome of total compensation? Has the Minister made any application to his departmental budget for additional resources to meet the likely increased costs, or will he take the money from the budget headings that are currently earmarked for our hard-pressed farmers and fishermen?
In the other place, Baroness Hayman confirmed that ancillary costs associated with the closing down of fur farming business, such as valuation fees, redundancy payments, interest payments for delayed compensation, costs of clearing land and the taking down of buildings and any legal fees, will all be considered by the Government during their consultations. We and the fur farmers need more than that. We would not accept "will be considered"—we need to hear the words "will be included." It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm, in any further remarks that he makes, that such income losses will be included in any assessment.
The Minister alluded to the fact that consultation is due to start in the near future, before Royal Assent, and we welcome that. Have the Government set a target date for the conclusion of the discussions?
The Government have moved in the direction that we asked them to take at all stages of the Bill in this House and in the other place. We welcome the fact that income losses have been included, but we are less than happy that, even at this late stage, a definition of those losses has not been forthcoming. The fur farmers who will be closed down in two years' time are no wiser about what they will receive in compensation.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I begin from the premise that the Bill is offensive and illiberal and should not be enacted, but it has passed through the House and the other place. Consequently, we
are dealing with what we have got. It would be churlish not to acknowledge that the Bill is somewhat better than it was when it left this place, because it now has a compensation clause.
Sub-amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 2 is the most important of the sub-amendments in my name. We need to be clear what the compensation scheme is. The compensation scheme as provided for in the Lords amendments does not provide for full compensation for all losses suffered by all businesses caught by the prohibition, whereas my amendments, if they were enacted by the House, would.
If one examines the Lords amendments, one finds that the Government have considerable discretion as to what to include or not to include in the scheme. There is a proviso to clause 5, as amended, which is couched in the following language:
A scheme … need not provide for the making of payments in respect of all income losses or all non-income losses or (as the case may be) in respect of all businesses.
The Bill now explicitly provides that the compensation need not cover all income losses and all non-income losses, and need not apply to all businesses covered by the prohibition. Therefore, in theory at least, no losses need to be covered and no businesses need to be compensated. That is the effect of the Lords amendment.
I am doing the Minister the justice of believing that that is not what he would wish. I assume that he wants to cover most income losses, most non-income losses and all businesses, but the House has a right to insist on clear language and to insist further on a proper compensation scheme.
I acknowledge that, in one sense, what I am urging on the House is different from what I have urged on the House before. I am conscious that compensation schemes have not been provided for other activities that, from time to time, have been prohibited by the House. Indeed, I acknowledge—otherwise, it will be said against me—that I personally am responsible for one such measure: the prohibition on head deboning at the time of the BSE crisis. That did not carry with it a compensation measure, but there are two differences. First, since the deboning measure was put in place, we have enacted the European convention on human rights and incorporated it into domestic law. One consequence is that, in all probability, compensation is a legal requirement in such cases—or, put differently, a prohibition without compensation would probably be deemed to be incompatible with convention rights. That being so, since I enacted a measure there is a change of circumstance which I recognise and which has consequences in law. Secondly, the prohibitions that have been enacted in the past have been done on a different basis from that on which we are operating today. For example, the prohibition on head deboning was done on the basis of a threat to human health. That was the justification for that Bill; actually, I think it was an order.
This Bill is justified not in terms of any pragmatic or scientific assessment of animal welfare, but on the basis of some assessment of public morality. It is wrong for the House to have done that because, within a democracy, minorities have rights. If one can only do that which the majority approve of, one is not living in a truly free society. We as Members of Parliament must be very

cautious about enacting proposals simply on the basis that we can get a majority to support them. That is a road to tyranny.
5.15 pm
If we are to take such action on such a narrow basis—which I believe to be wrong—it is essential that we put our money where our vote is. If we are to make a prohibition on a basis that I believe to be fundamentally flawed, we must compensate properly and fully. That means—this is what my amendments are intended to achieve—that all businesses caught by the prohibition should receive compensation for all their income losses, and for all their non-income losses.
Non-income losses can be substantial. Unquestionably—my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) mentioned this—the capital value of the premises that will be outlawed, together with that of the stock, will be very great. That has been the case in Austria, where a high capital value has been placed on each fur farm—although, naturally, the facts have been under-explained.
We are depriving people of an important asset which they had every right to expect to see them into old age, providing pension funds and so forth, simply because of our assessment of public morality. I consider that shameful.

Mr. Roger Gale: My right hon. and learned Friend is a lawyer, which I am not. He may be able to assist me, and prevent me from making a lengthy speech later.
I do not understand the difference between proactive and reactive prohibition. As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, I am a passionate supporter of the pet travel scheme. We introduced the scheme, and consequently deprived a significant number of quarantine kennel owners—who had set up businesses to serve an Act of Parliament—of their living. They received no compensation. I do not understand how it is possible to compensate generously one section of the business public whom we have deprived of their living, and not compensate another section at all.

Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree. This is a serious question, which is why I drew attention to the prohibition on head deboning. I recognise that I was the Minister responsible for that prohibition, and that the scheme I introduced did not provide for compensation.
A variety of approaches have been adopted over many years. For example, some of the firearms legislation did not, in the first instance, provide for proper compensation. I am thinking of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. The legislation subsequently did make such provision, but only, I believe, in respect of the capital value of the weapons concerned; it did not provide for compensation for loss of income.
There is a serious problem relating to compensation. Governments frequently intervene to prohibit or regulate activities, and historically, as a general rule—there are exceptions—we have not provided compensation. An important change has taken place, namely the incorporation into domestic law of the European convention on human rights. It has also been recognised that, given the rights of property enshrined by one of


the articles—I think it is article 14, although I may be wrong—it is necessary to provide compensation where such rights will be infringed.
As the House and, probably, the country will realise, there is a difference between intervening to prohibit an activity on grounds of public health or public policy—rather broadly defined—and simply expressing our own preferences in regard to what is right or wrong. If we are to indulge ourselves in the latter respect, which I strongly believe we should not—I hope I have made that plain; I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale)—we should provide a much more generous compensation scheme than we would provide if we acted on the basis of what is necessary for animal welfare.

Maria Eagle: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that capital assets will still be owned by the fur farmers, and that there is an alternative use for those assets? A fur farmer in Scotland found that his capital assets were perfect for the purpose of setting up a farm on which to grow strawberries.

Mr. Hogg: Clearly, a fur farmer possesses land, and, depending on the quantity and quality of that land, it may have an alternative use. Indeed, it is likely to have an alternative use. However, it is probable that the value of that land and those assets will be much diminished by the prohibition. Regardless, if that land is to be put to an alternative use, there will have to be a very substantial capital investment to transform the physical facilities on the land. Therefore, on any view—we can argue about the extent of the diminution—there will be a very substantial—[Interruption.]
The hon. Lady is indicating ambivalence. It is not a matter of "if and but"; it would be a serious capital loss. Although only 12 or 13 farmers will be affected—

Maria Eagle: There are 11.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful.
Why should the House impose on 11 farmers a real loss, when we have it within our ability to compensate them entirely for that loss? I think that that is what we should be doing.

Mr. Morley: I simply want to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) on the difference between fur farmers and quarantine kennels. Although there are various differences between the two cases, the principal one is that the quarantine regulation changes have not resulted in the closure of quarantine kennels. There is still business for quarantine kennels. Additionally, the quarantine regulation changes do not apply to some countries, where there is endemic street rabies. Consequently, there is still a requirement for United Kingdom quarantine facilities. The fur farming proposals would have a different effect.

Mr. Hogg: The Parliamentary Secretary's remarks are correct, but they are correct only in part. Although it is perfectly true that there is a requirement for kennels, it is also true that, over time, their volume of business will decrease very substantially. Therefore, if one were to measure year on year, before and after the change in the

passport laws, one will find a diminution in business because of the change in the quarantine routine. So, although there is a continuing business, there is a loss.

Mr. John Bercow: Is it not particularly distressing that the order that would be forthcoming consequent upon agreement to Lords amendment No. 2 would not be subject to amendment? Precisely because of the potentially unsatisfactory contents of the scheme, it is essential either that an order be capable of amendment, or, preferably, that the much more generous, all-embracing and specific proposals that my right hon. and learned Friend is making in his amendments be accepted.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is basically right on both points. However, he is making a much more general point, which I have urged on the House very many times, on statutory instruments. Increasingly, over many years—when Conservative Members were in government, too—the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have strayed into quarantine and strawberries, and now into statutory instruments. Although I am prepared to let the right hon. and learned Gentleman give some background to his amendments, I think that he should now come back to the point.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has made an important point. If the scheme is introduced by way of a statutory instrument, it could not be amended. He believes, therefore, that my amendment should be passed. I was seeking to agree with him and to say that there is an underlying problem with using statutory instruments, which cannot be amended.
There is a way round the problem, and I commend it to the Parliamentary Secretary. It is possible to lay draft statutory instruments. If that were done in this case, the House would be able to debate them—in Government time, and on the Floor of the House—so that hon. Members could express a view on the scheme and on the compensation figures. Nevertheless, although that would be one way of meeting some of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, the situation is profoundly unsatisfactory.
I have always regarded this as a profoundly illiberal and offensive Bill, and I have often spoken against the proposals that it contains, including when they were in a private Member's Bill. Basically, I do not think that the Bill is compatible with the views that I have formed on minority rights in a free society. However, given that we have a Bill of this type, I believe that the House should be as generous as possible on compensation. I also think that the House has to acknowledge that we are dealing with the livelihoods of 11 or so people and with very substantial capital assets.
It is not right for the House to be presented with a compensation scheme that does not fully address all the losses. I am prepared to accept that there may be some difficulty with expressing the formulae in the Bill, but that the Bill should address all the losses is something on which the House should express a view. I have a very clear view that it should address all the income and


non-income losses and should extend to all the businesses covered, and that the proviso to the scheme does none of those things.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I shall be very brief. I give a cautious and qualified welcome to the Government's acceptance of the Lords amendments. It signifies a potential step in the right direction that could prove to be quite significant. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) said, it is a matter of grave regret that, at this stage, the parameters of the compensation scheme are still unknown and there remains an enormous discrepancy between the Government's apparent thinking and the real loss of income that fur farmers will incur.
I warmly support the amendment moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). He demonstrates clearly that the Lords amendments do not cover all income and non-income losses. I regard this as an unacceptable state of affairs and I endorse what my right hon. and learned Friend said: that the House should insist on a proper compensation scheme for fur farmers.
Even with the amendments, this remains a miserable, vindictive, wholly unjustified and unjustifiable Bill. It is draconian and ill-considered. In essence, it is state persecution of a minority to satisfy a perceived prejudice of the majority.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I join the chorus of condemnation of the Bill. I am sorry that we are here finishing off a piece of legislation which I agree is deeply illiberal.
It is a pity that we are here to abolish many people's livelihoods. I take issue with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) as, although the Bill involves 11 farmers with 13 farms, those farms employ a large number of people, some on a full-time basis and many more on a part-time basis. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) shakes her head; she may like to visit the farm in my constituency where I will introduce her to the staff that work there. Those people have jobs in an area where employment is hard to find, so the Bill will have a considerable impact on the local economy where the farms are based.

Angela Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Bill is fundamentally more honest than the proposals made by his hon. Friends in Committee, which would have improved the standards to such an extent that fur farmers would have been put out of business? The Bill will give them compensation, whereas his hon. Friends' proposals would not.

Mr. Atkinson: I take the standpoint that the whole measure is completely wrong. I think that fur farmers should be allowed to continue their businesses under the existing regulations, which are now being tightened up in Europe to improve the conditions under which mink are kept. The hon. Lady may disagree, but the logic is that our action today will put fur farmers in the United Kingdom out of business, so there will be an increase

in production, particularly in eastern European countries where conditions are much worse than they are here. What, then, is the benefit for animal welfare? How will the mink benefit?
We are discussing a narrow measure and I am concerned for my constituent, Mr. Harrison, who tonight is no nearer knowing how much he might get for his business than he was several months ago. Although I appreciate that Ministers hide behind the legalistic fig leaf that they cannot proceed until the Bill has received Royal Assent, I believe that negotiations should have started much earlier so that fur farmers would know precisely how much they were likely to get. We still do not know some of the parameters involved. For instance, for how long will compensation for income be available? How long does it take for a fur farmer to establish another business? I have no idea. Will most of the compensation be paid up front? Under normal compulsory purchase procedures, between 80 and 90 per cent. of compensation is paid up front: will fur farmers benefit from the same provision?

Mr. Hogg: Many fur farmers are near the end of their careers. Does my hon. Friend agree that it will be difficult for them to find alternative employment, whereas they could have hoped to continue with fur farming well into normal retirement?

Mr. Atkinson: That is correct. My constituent, Mr. Harrison, is a man of middle age—I hope that he will not mind my saying that—and has suffered heart problems that were brought on by the stress of endless day-and-night demonstrations outside his farm. It would be difficult for him to start a new enterprise that would bring him anywhere near the same rewards.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston has the wrong idea of what a mink farm looks like, as do the Government. In Committee in another place, Baroness Hayman said:
No compensation should be required for the land—that would have alternative uses—but compensation may be required for buildings and equipment…—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 October 2000; Vol. 617, c. 34.]
Most of the fur farm in my constituency is concreted over, or covered with hard standing, so it cannot be dug up to grow strawberries. The hard standing covers several acres, and will have virtually no value after the farm has been closed down.

Maria Eagle: It is not true that I have no idea what mink farms look like. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that I have visited them, and I have met his constituent, Mr. Harrison?

Mr. Atkinson: I do accept that, but the hon. Lady's words implied that she thinks that fur farms cover rolling acres. They do not: they are small outfits, and most are made up largely of hard standing and concrete.

Mr. James Gray: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) protests that she has visited fur farms. I am delighted that she has, but does my hon. Friend recall that on Second Reading of her private Member's Bill on this matter she was forced to admit that


she had not visited a fur farm? She was determined to ban them anyway. She has since seen reason and visited one, but she had not done so at the time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not want to stray too far down that road, nor do we want a Second Reading debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) will confine himself to the amendments.

Mr. Atkinson: I take your stricture seriously, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston—who is now engaged in heated debate with my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) behind your Chair—has visited a fur farm.

Mr. Bercow: In reflecting on the need for a generous compensation scheme, what assessment has my hon. Friend made of those people who, in 1996 or 1997, might have contemplated starting a career in fur farming in the apparently confident knowledge that the Labour party was not committed to abolishing the industry?

Mr. Atkinson: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I had not considered it, but perhaps the Minister will respond to it.
My final point concerns the House's ability to review the compensation scheme, when it is at last agreed. If at that time the Government are still talking about £400,000 plus four times that figure for income, they will need to be much more generous. I hope that the Minister will give the House a more generous estimate of the amounts involved in the compensation scheme.
In addition, it would be right for the House to have a further opportunity to consider the compensation scheme in detail. That would be preferable to the blunt instrument that is the statutory instrument procedure, which allows hon. Members only to reject or accept a proposal. We must be able to ensure that fur farmers are treated generously and fairly.

Mr. Eric Forth: The abbreviated debate that has taken place thus far illustrates the extent of the problems that arose at the start of this saga—under the previous and the current Bill. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the crucial point on compensation—rightly, a constant theme—has still not been resolved. Despite the Minister's attempt to be helpful, I am not sure that we are much further on.
I regret not only the Bill itself and its whole basis, but the fact that we find ourselves in the rather demeaning position of discussing a group of people whose livelihood has been destroyed by statute and who are holding out a metaphorical begging bowl for taxpayers' money in compensation. That demeans them and, in a way, it demeans us as well. It raises the question—which I shall not pursue, because you would not permit me to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker—of whether and when it is appropriate for those whose livelihoods are destroyed or affected by statute to be compensated by the taxpayer in some way. Clearly, the taxpayer would make such compensation, not the Government. The Government have no money; they have our money and they hand it out—usually in fairly ill-conceived ways. We should not forget that.
In effect the Minister is saying, "Trust me. The form of the compensation scheme has not been worked out yet; I am going to consult". "Consult" is a good word—one much used by Ministers these days. The Minister apparently intends to set up some expert body—I think he said "assessors". That makes my blood run cold. Whenever experts or assessors are involved, we can bet that there will be a mess. Those experts will talk to the potential recipients of the taxpayers' money, so I suppose that we—as the guardians of the taxpayer—are the only people who can make the other side of the argument.
I can see how the Minister will be involved; his experts and assessors will roam the country to talk to the people who are holding out a begging bowl. This debate is our only opportunity to make representations on behalf of the people whose money is to be handed out. We should not forget that there are two sides to the argument.
The Minister told us that the assessors will do their thing. Presumably, under the provisions of the Bill, the Government will then make an order to give effect to the details of the scheme. At that point, we surmise, it will come back to the House in the form of a statutory instrument, which of course—as usual—will not be amendable. In any case, the result of all the consultation of which the Minister is so proud will be worked up into a statutory instrument, as the Bill provides; and we shall then be asked to say yes or no to it.

Mr. Hogg: My understanding of the Bill—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—is that the statutory instrument will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. That being so, it will not be the subject of an affirmative vote and will almost certainly not be debated by the House.

Mr. Forth: In my typically generous way, I was trying to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt. My right hon. and learned Friend, whose powers of analysis are legendary, has spotted the fact that there will be no affirmative vote, so I must withdraw my generosity. If the Minister confirms that my right hon. and learned Friend is correct, matters are worse than they seem. We really are no further forward.

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend has not only been generous to the Government in public: in a conversation I held with him a few moments ago, he was generous about their intentions in private. I trust his experience of this place; he had surmised that the statutory instrument or order would be subject to the affirmative procedure. Does he agree that it is thoroughly unacceptable both that it will not be subject to that procedure and that the Government, in failing to tell us that important fact, are guilty of scurrilous sleight of hand?

Mr. Forth: I fear that is all too typical. My hon. Friend is a keen observer of these matters; he is aware that a parade of Ministers come to the Chamber to speak to us on various matters, giving us bland words and trying to be reassuring. However, we do not have to dig very deep to find that matters are not as they seem. The Minister has much explaining to do to satisfy Members in the Chamber at present, let alone those unfortunates whose livelihoods are about to be destroyed.
Clause 5 and the Lords amendments to it are, in many ways, the key to the Bill; that is why their lordships spent so much time on them. The amendments make an attempt,


do they not, to flesh out and make more satisfactory the definitions of income and non-income, which are at the heart of the compensation scheme? However, I am not sure that they take us much further forward. I recognise that the compensation will be subject to the assessors, the Minister and his officials, consultation and statutory instruments—all that—but before we finally approve the Bill, if we are minded to do so, incorporating the Lords amendments, we need to know what definition of "income" will be used.
These days, "income" can mean, in a business context, gross or net income. It can mean the gross takings of an enterprise, or its profitable results before or after tax, or before or after deductions. Even that apparently simple word has many possible definitions. We need a much fuller explanation of its meaning here.
The Minister has said that he is not in a position to explain now, but while we are considering the Lords amendments, as against the original text of the Bill, we are entitled to pause and press the Minister to give us a clearer idea of the way in which he will guide the experts and assessors—which I assume he will want to do—before they go out and meet the unfortunates whose livelihoods are to be destroyed.

Mr. Morley: rose—

Mr. Forth: Oh, the Minister is going to be helpful now.

Mr. Morley: It may help if I explain to the right hon. Gentleman that the assessors will be independent assessors. They will not be Ministry officials or Ministry employees. They will conduct the assessment subject to the guidelines laid down by their professional association, which will probably be the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. There are very clear ways of assessing income and valuation on that basis, and it will be done in consultation with the farmers concerned. If farmers wish their own independent assessors to do the same and to discuss with the Ministry assessors, they are of course free to do so.

Mr. Forth: That is a very generous offer by the Minister—he is saying, "If you, whose livelihood is about to be destroyed, would like to spend even more of your money getting your experts to argue with the taxpayer-funded experts, you are free to do so". I am grateful to the Minister.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend might want to raise the point that the assessment will be done in accordance with the scheme, and the scheme is laid out by the Under-Secretary, and it can be as mean as he likes as long as it falls within the terms of the statute. That is why my amendments are so important.

Mr. Forth: Of course my right hon. and learned Friend's amendments are important; I accept that. I shall discuss the meanness in due course. I am only just warming up, as he knows, and there is a long way to go yet. As I was getting into my stride, I wanted to see whether I could tease the Minister into giving us an idea of his thinking on gross or net income. He has given us

no idea, because he has now said that the experts will go out armed with a scheme of some kind, the details of which we do not know but they may or may not know. Even so, and even given that the experts will talk to the unfortunate recipients of taxpayers' money, we have no idea whether the amount of compensation will be based on gross income to the enterprise as an income flow, or whether the experts will pay more attention to net income after expenses, tax and so on. That is rather important.
When we come to the non-income assets and the compensation for them, we get into even deeper water. I am sure that some people outside this place believed that the compensation scheme would start from the premise that the non-income assets, buildings and particularly land, would be valued independently and expertly—a not unreasonable starting point.
Now the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) has brought strawberries into the argument—no doubt trying, in her usual way, to help. However, the strawberry argument is worrying. If the assessment is to take account not just of a valuation of the land, buildings, assets and so on, which we can all well understand, but of all possible alternative uses such as strawberries or otherwise, we are in deep water—if a strawberry can be in deep water. The matter is becoming increasingly complicated.
5.45 pm
The Minister appears serene, but I hope that, when he winds up this little debate, he will be able to give us a much clearer idea of when we can begin to consider compensation for non-income assets. Will we start with a clean sheet, and will he say that his experts will be able to consider the way in which the businesses operate and the assets that they deploy, without any constraint or guidelines from him or his officials?
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) was helpful when he described his constituent's fur farm which had been concreted over. I have been led to believe that other fur farms occupy a considerable acreage of a variety of land. I do not know how many strawberries the hon. Member for Garston had in mind when she came up with her idea, but it strikes me that there could be a wide variation in the nature of the non-income assets involved. I hope that that means that there will be a flexible approach towards the compensation that might be available for them.
The point that I am making in my introductory remarks is that more questions remain than have been answered already. The Bill is in its final stages and people's livelihoods have been threatened. Their lordships have tried to be helpful in sending the amendments to us, but I am not sure that they take us much further forward. Unless the Minister is a lot more persuasive than he has been hitherto, I will not be persuaded that we are heading in the right direction.
So much for the preliminaries: let us get down to business. The issue of timing has come up in the debate already, and I have considered it. On the face of it, one would have thought that the matter would and should have been resolved already, and not just by clause 5, which is the subject of the amendments. I looked for guidance in clause 7 (3), which states:
Section 5 shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.


It is a matter of detail, but I presume that the term "the Act is passed" means Royal Assent rather than the Act being finally approved by both Houses of Parliament. I do not want to make much of an issue of that, because I suspect that the time difference between the two will not be great. It seems clear that the Act will come into force two months after it is passed.
The problem is that clause 7(2) says that sections 1 to 4 of the Act will not come into force before 1 January 2003. It is possible that the compensation process, which is the subject of clause 5 and the amendments, will take place in an extended period of time. That leaves many questions unanswered. For example, what would happen if a business went out of business in the interim period? How will we be able to judge whether the fact that a business has failed is attributable to the effect of the Act prior to the date of January 2003? Will the date be taken into account? Will people be able to go into voluntary liquidation as a result of the threat of the Act coming into force, or will they have to wait until it comes into effect?
The passage of time can have an important influence on the valuation of the assets. For example, on income or non-income assets, the passage of time may lead to considerable variation in the values of the product itself—the unfortunate animals—or the land and buildings. Those values may vary considerably upwards or downwards in a few months and they certainly would in two or three years. That could considerably affect the amount of compensation provided.
We need to know much more from the Minister on the important subject of the period between the Act being passed and the date of January 2003 or beyond. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham asked, will the compensation scheme continue to exist beyond that date? Although the businesses may be arbitrarily ended by statute on a certain date, it is perfectly possible that there will be a lengthy period beyond that before the formalities are complete and the compensation is required or payable. We need to know more about that.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend might press the Minister on another matter. A business that closes down after the Bill is enacted may do so not because its activity is prohibited but because the owner is seeking to get the best value at that time. We do not want the Minister then to say that no compensation is payable because the closure is the result not of the prohibition but of the fur farmer's choice to dispose of his land at the best possible price.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. and learned Friend helpfully expands a point that I was trying to make. There is considerable doubt about the scope or flexibility in the application of clause 5 and the amendments tabled to it, and whether a voluntary liquidation or going out of business will be treated in the same way as an enforced going out of business. There is a difference. For example, if the value of pelts or, for a reason that we cannot foresee, the value of land or buildings, varied considerably, could farmers determine the timing of their compensation claims or would it be arbitrarily imposed on them by the Minister, his experts and officials? We do not know the answer to that, but we must have it before we decide whether to approve the amendments.
The amendments hint at that. Lords amendment No. 2 says that the scheme
need not provide for the making of payments in respect of all income losses or all non-income losses or (as the case may be) in respect of all businesses—
an escape clause if ever I saw one. When we considered the Bill's text in its different incarnations here and in another place, we were led to believe that, at long last, we were to be given the certainty of a compensation scheme. The people whose livelihoods were going to be destroyed could at least rest easy because they were guaranteed compensation, but Lords amendment No. 2 appears to allow the Minister to wriggle out of that.

Mr. Bercow: I am of a suspicious turn of mind, as my right hon. Friend is aware. We are told that clause 5 will come into force two months after the Bill becomes an Act. We are also told that clause 5(5) will facilitate an appeal or reference to the Lands Tribunal for determination when someone has been notified of the amount that he is to be paid but is dissatisfied with it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the provision in Lords amendment No. 2 for circumstances in which no compensation arrangements are to be made could be used as a lever against someone who was intending to negotiate over a relatively long period—as near as possible to the rest of the Act coming into force in 2003—to browbeat him to an early settlement on the basis that he might otherwise get nothing at all?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. Once one gets into that territory, such considerations—regrettably—become all too possible. My hon. Friend's question leads me to ask whether the Lands Tribunal will deal only with disputes that are about amounts or whether they could be about whether compensation should be payable.

Mrs. Llin Golding: What if the owner of a fur farm dies and has no one in place to manage it? The loss would be tremendous. If he dies within the three years, what happens to compensation for his family? Is it reduced because the farm is non-existent?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that important point. It is a subset of the argument that I made a moment ago concerning the possible variation in value, which would decrease rather rapidly in the tragic circumstances that the hon. Lady described. Is the Minister satisfied that proper arrangements will be made if such events unfold? Does he agree that the value—income or non-income—could be dramatically affected by them? I hope that he will respond to our concerns about that.
On the Lands Tribunal, hon. Members who have been following the Bill's tortuous passage through Parliament will recall that we wanted a body other than the Lands Tribunal to play a part in the scheme, because we were unhappy about that organisation's ability and expertise to deal with such matters properly. The compensation arrangements as set out in clause 5 and the amendments have given us a different angle to consider and have given rise to another doubt in our minds.
If the Minister, feeling more hard-hearted than normal, were to invoke the provisions of Lords amendment No. 2 and say that he was not prepared to provide compensation, could that be regarded as a dispute under clause 5(5) and


be referred to the Lands Tribunal? In other words, will the Lands Tribunal be a court of appeal against the Minister—urged on by his officials, experts or others—saying that no payment will be made? We need to know, because that will be an important aspect of the way in which the scheme operates and relevant to the reassurances that we want to give to people whose livelihoods are about to be taken away from them.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend gets to the root of the scheme. The problem is that the compensation and the categories of people who are entitled to it flow from the scheme as published. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the real problem is that the House will never have the opportunity to discuss—and, therefore, to shape—the scheme on which the answers to the question posed by my right hon. Friend will ultimately depend?

Mr. Forth: I am prepared—just once more—to be slightly more generous to the Minister than my right hon. and learned Friend. The Minister could give us an undertaking even now—

Mr. Bercow: If he were listening.

Mr. Forth: He appears not to be, but the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is here. Perhaps he will intervene and give us an assurance that the House will at the very least have the opportunity explicitly to debate—[Interruption.] It was worth a try. Had the right hon. Gentleman stayed, he would have had that opportunity, but perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can confirm that the matter will come back to the House, even if we cannot amend it, so that we have the chance to throw it out completely and tell the Government to think again. That series of questions requires an answer.
Intriguingly, Lords amendment No. 3 seeks to change the wording of clause 5(2)(b), which at present states that the scheme may specify the amounts of the payments to be made or the basis on which such amounts are to be calculated, adding after "basis" the words "or bases". I am not sure whether that is an improvement. I can see the argument both ways. We might decide, as the other place did, that if we restricted the measure to one scheme with a single basis, it would not be sufficiently flexible to deal with the undoubtedly different circumstances that surround all the enterprises that might be affected. It could be argued that we require more than one basis, which is what the amendment does. That might be a plus, but in some circumstances could become a disadvantage.
6 pm
It is not impossible to envisage schemes designed to minimise rather than maximise payments to the unfortunates whose livelihoods are about to be destroyed by this statute. We have no idea, as far as I am aware, of the amounts of money that the Minister has available to him to give in compensation. We know with a reasonable degree of certainty how many enterprises will be affected, although that figure is not as firm as some might think because of the amount of time that may pass and other varying circumstances. However, we certainly do not know the effect of the passage of time, and it is at least

possible, until we are reassured otherwise by the Minister, that several different schemes, as allowed under the proposed wording in Lords amendment No. 3, could be devised to be as miserly rather than as generous as possible.
The Minister has given us no idea of his thinking on the matter. Is he going to instruct his officials and assessors to devise schemes that will recognise as fully and generously as possible all effects—income and non-income—on the enterprises? Will he say that he knows that any compensation will come from taxpayers' money but that Parliament has decided to remove fur farmers' livelihoods and that therefore they should be fully compensated? Will we all be able to hold our heads up at least in the knowledge that when the jackboot of government has walked across those people's land, they will be properly and adequately compensated?

Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to know, and to know this evening, the significance of the use of the plural? The Minister's brow is furrowed, but there is no need for any misunderstanding. Would it not be helpful to know whether the existence of a number of bases of calculation will afford some choice for the victim, or whether it is simply a vehicle for the exercise of administrative fiat by a bureaucrat?

Mr. Forth: That is of course the point at issue. It is not unreasonable to ask the Minister whether at this stage he would be prepared to give some reassurance—not to us, although we, as custodians of the taxpayer, need some as well. The thrust of this short debate is that we want the victims to have as much knowledge as possible of what the Government have in mind, the direction in which they want to move and the amounts of money that might be involved. I do not think that that is asking too much.
The Minister could say, "I have £6 million"—or £60 million or £600 million. He could say that his guidance to the experts and assessors will be to find ways in which to give the people affected as much compensation as is properly possible. Or one could envisage circumstances in which he could say the complete opposite: "We want to get away with paying as little as possible because we do not like these people, which is why we are destroying their livelihoods, and we do not see why they should get much of the taxpayers' money." There is a wide spectrum between the one and the other, and any number of positions in between.
Lords amendment No. 5 confused me; I am not really sure how much further it is supposed to take us. Perhaps the Minister will explain. The proposal is no doubt an attempt to be helpful but—and here is an interesting question—does it really add anything? Does it clarify, elucidate or help us in any way? Presumably, their lordships believed that they were being helpful. Perhaps they were bamboozled by the Government and the Government came up with the words. It would be fairly typical of them if they did. I cannot imagine that the amendment is designed to be helpful. Let us look at it again:
income losses" means losses of income.
That does not help me very much.

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Mr. Forth: Perhaps it helps my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is interesting that the amendment does not stipulate "all income losses"? One can imagine at least two classes of income loss. One is trading loss—the ordinary profit and loss account—and the other the loss of the rental that a farmer might receive if he let out the facilities. My right hon. Friend will know that I have tabled an amendment that includes the word "all", which would mean that all income losses would fall within the scheme. Does he think that there is merit in that?

Mr. Forth: I had hoped that it would go without saying that I find merit throughout my right hon. and learned Friend's amendments. Indeed, I hope to be supporting him. If the Government are foolish enough not to accept his amendments, I hope that he will seek to divide the House on them. I will certainly give him every assistance in that so that we can tell who is who and who is coming from where in this argument.
To return to the words of the Lords amendment, even my right hon. and learned Friend has not been able to help me. In fact, I am now more worried. Even if we added the word "all", the proposal might help us or it might confuse the issue and muddy the waters. I am beginning to suspect that much in the Bill—and, if I may say so, the amendments, which I suppose were designed to be helpful—takes us no further forward, gives us little advice on what is going on and leaves us with numerous questions for the Minister.
I should have thought that, by this stage—having been through the preliminary bout of the private Member's Bill of the hon. Member for Garston and all the proceedings here and in another place on this Government Bill—we would have arrived at the crossing of t's and dotting of i's, but we have done nothing of the kind. Without trying very hard, my right hon. Friends and I have come up with a myriad of questions. The Minister looks as if he wants to be helpful—I hope he does—and perhaps will be able to avoid any contention or a Division by coming forward reasonably and helpfully as he always does. He is smiling encouragingly; I hope that he will give a full explanation so that we can all rest easy knowing the shape of the Bill, the direction it will take, the guidance that will be given and what we can expect.
The Minister might even ice the cake by giving an undertaking that any detailed scheme devised by his experts, in consultation and so on, will be put before the House. I would like any such decision to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, but at least under the negative resolution procedure we would be given a chance to consider the scheme and then decide whether to accept it or throw it out because we could not amend it.
Such questions are just a hint of those that come readily to the surface. We have not even dug deeply. I would not test your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by trying to do so today. We have just quickly skimmed the surface. All such questions arise from the Lords amendments. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us, help us and give us all the information that we feel we need at this stage to make our assessment as a House.

Mrs. Golding: I, too, have been puzzled by the "non-income losses" to which amendment No. 5 refers.
I cannot work out what it means either. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it could mean losses to do with the hooligans who stand outside fur farmers' houses, damage their property, scrape their cars and let down or slash their tyres, as they have in my constituency? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would explain.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady; such things will have to be looked at. If the Minister is serious about the consultation process that he has described—in which, I guess, his assessors would be armed with guidelines, criteria and some standard scheme, which seemed to impress him—assessors would talk to the hon. Lady's constituents and others affected about the basis on which the scheme should be devised. If that worked properly, it would be an opportunity for those affected to point out that, as the hon. Lady has said, some people have been subject to the most ghastly victimisation, thuggery and destruction of property, all in the name of animal rights and welfare. I hope that that will be fully taken into account.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) raised an important point. Many of fur farmers have incurred huge security expenditure in trying to guard their property against the offensive activity carried out by those trying to disrupt their business and by the proponents of the Bill outside the House. Should not such substantial security expenditure be recoverable?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. That touches on a question that arose earlier—whether the security measures had been put in some time ago or recently. It is perfectly possible that they were put in just before people were made aware, through a manifesto or whatever else, that it was the intention of new Labour to destroy their livelihood.
There is another, related question—whether the security arrangements would enhance the value of the property. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for pointing me in that direction. It is possible that the security arrangements would be useful to protect the strawberries when they came on to the scene.
The strawberries mentioned by the hon. Member for Garston are becoming an important part of the debate. When we were discussing income and non-income losses in terms of the Lords amendments and the clause in its original form, the hon. Lady helpfully pointed out that in at least one case, a fur farm had been converted—profitably, she implied—to the growing of strawberries. We would have to consider such alternative use. When we introduce the matter of security arrangements, that raises the interesting question of the extent to which those could be seen as enhancing the value of the property, depending on what its alternative use might be. Another area of doubt has appeared, which I hope the Minister—

Mrs. Golding: rose—

Mr. Forth: I will give way to the hon. Lady, although I am desperately trying to conclude—

Mr. John Gummer: rose—

Mr. Forth: Now I am besieged. I give way to my right hon. Friend, then I will be more than happy to give way to the hon. Lady.

Mr. Gummer: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. On his point about income losses meaning losses of income, I find it difficult to understand how income losses could mean anything else. In clause 5, to which Lords amendment No. 5 refers, it is difficult to find any instance in which the term "income losses" is used, but many other terms much more otiose than that are used. Does my right hon. Friend consider that that phrase properly refers to clause 5(2)? If not, clause 5(2) ought to have some similar explanation, if an explanation is necessary in so simple a matter as income losses and non-income losses.

Mr. Forth: Subject to what the Minister may say to guide us, that is what Lords amendment No. 2 may be intended to do. It refers to
the description or descriptions of income losses and the description or descriptions of non-income losses in respect of which payments are to be made
and to
the description or descriptions of businesses in respect of which payments are to be made.
In other words, the scheme is obliged to take account of those. The clause goes on, rather worryingly, as my right hon. Friend will know, to introduce an exclusion clause, which could potentially mean that nothing was paid at all.
However, we know the Minister well enough—or we hope that we do—to know that that is not in his mind. He may want to tell us why he is prepared to recommend to the House that that amendment be included. He may even tell us whether it was the Government or he himself who initiated it, or whether it arose in another place, has come to us in the form of a Lords amendment and is accepted by the Government with more or less reluctance.

Mr. Gummer: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I do not understand why the Government seek to change the wording of clause 5(2) and why, having changed the wording, presumably to make it clearer, they need an addendum to explain what the clearer wording means, whereas they did not need an addendum to explain what the original, less clear, wording meant. Can that be cleared up?

Mr. Forth: Not by me. I am as puzzled as my right hon. Friend. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) helpfully says, I am not the author. My right hon. Friend simply reinforces what I said earlier: we need an explanation from the Minister as to whether the proposed new wording is helpful or obfuscatory. I suspect that it may be the latter.

Mr. Bercow: Given the uncertain impact of security considerations on the value of the sites—a consideration that my right hon. Friend helpfully highlighted—does he agree that it becomes particularly important to ensure that the consultation process is long enough to allow these matters properly to be taken into account? If the Government do not see sense, is there not a danger that if clause 5 is implemented two months after the passage of the Act, it will be arbitrary, capricious and damaging?

Mr. Forth: I hope that my hon. Friend is incorrect. Again, the Minister is under an obligation to give us a

clearer idea of the scope and duration of the consultation process. One can see arguments both ways. One imagines that the people whose livelihoods are to be destroyed by the statute may want the matter to be resolved as quickly as possible, but is there not a tension between that and the need for proper consultation and for the matter to be properly dealt with by the Minister's experts and assessors?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. It would be appropriate—nay, essential—for the Minister to tell us, in his introduction to the Lords amendments, how long he believes the consultation process should go on in order to meet all the requirements.
So many questions have been raised during the debate, although the matter looked so simple—

Mrs. Golding: I am sorry to intrude on the right hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks. It occurred to me that when the consultations had virtually finished, the so-called animal rights protesters—those thugs—might come along and release mink again, as they did to the fur farmer in my constituency. The fur farmer would then have to meet the cost of rounding the animals up and installing additional security for a very short time. Would that be taken into account, even though an agreement was already in hand?

Mr. Forth: The hon. Lady raises an important point. Let us envisage the circumstances in which the assessors have consulted and agreed with the victims how the package will operate. The statutory instrument is then devised and brought before the House—under which procedure, we know not yet. I hope that we will be reassured by the Minister.
Under the terms of the package, the assessors go out again, armed with their thick book of regulations about how the scheme will work, run their slide rule over the concrete or whatever it may be—the buildings and so on—and arrive at a figure. They go away and everybody feels reassured, except that between that point and the finalisation, the thugs come along and wreak further havoc on the innocent person plying his legal trade, and diminish the value of the property.
What mechanism, the hon. Lady asks, exists to allow for the fact that there may be a dramatic reduction in the value of the property, and possibly also the livestock, caused by mindless thugs between the time of the apparent settlement of the compensation and the payment being made? Will there be an expiry time? That takes us back to a question that we have already raised. One can begin to see that all these questions interrelate and interact in a way—[Interruption.] If the late-coming hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) wants to intervene—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.

Mr. Forth: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, I am always happy to take proper interventions, even from the hon. Gentleman, but I am trying to conclude my remarks.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has raised an important point—not a theoretical point, but one which, given the experience of her constituency, could well arise in the most regrettable, unfortunate and, frankly, disgusting circumstances.
We have posed a number of questions to the Minister. It is his job now to seek to reassure the House on those matters before we have to make up our minds whether to divide the House. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) might agree that if the Minister can answer all our questions to our satisfaction, fully and comprehensively, he will consider not pressing the amendment to a Division. However, if the Minister falls short of that standard and requirement, we may want to test the view of the House.

Mr. Norman Baker: I shall try to redress the balance of the debate. We have heard several speeches against the Bill, and I remind the House that so far the Bill has worked its way successfully through all stages in this place and in another place. I hope that it is now close to enactment. A clear majority of Members on both sides of the Chamber support it, and it has clear support among the public. I introduced a Bill to outlaw fur farming in March 1998. The issue has been the subject of considerable discussion and it is disingenuous for the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to say—I hope that I quote him accurately—that this is the only opportunity to make representations. There have been many opportunities to make representations on the Bill—

Mr. Forth: Not on Lords amendments.

Mr. Baker: My reference to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks did not refer only to Lords amendments. It related to the compensation package, which has been discussed ad infinitum, if not ad nauseam, in the House, in Committee and in another place.
There are about 13 fur farmers throughout the country. They can feel that they have had a good innings in the House and elsewhere in terms of their views being represented. I do not wish to denigrate those people because the rights of one individual in this country are as important philosophically as the rights of 1 million people. When somebody's livelihood is taken away it is appropriate that the issues are properly discussed and subject to scrutiny, and that has happened in this instance. I have supported the process and participated in it. The issues have been thoroughly aired, and we can feel justified in having participated in that process.
The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson)—

Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what he thinks the compensation amounts to?

Mr. Baker: I wish to make progress, but I shall take up that specific point. We have had what I regard as clear assurances from the Minister that the compensation scheme will be introduced. There are signs that it will be widened beyond the scope that it would have had previously. It is for the Minister to make his own case. I believe that he is an honourable man, and when he says that compensation will be provided, I believe that it will be. I am happy to take his word for that. I do not believe that a charlatan scheme will be introduced to defraud about a dozen people. We have had clear assurances, and for Members to suggest otherwise is to be somewhat disingenuous.

Mr. Bercow: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have the highest respect for him. Will he accept from me that no

Conservative Member, as far as I am aware, is suggesting that the Minister is a charlatan. Certainly not. However, there is scope for honest difference of opinion. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is dangerous for him to imply that the fur farmers should be rather grateful that these matters have taken up as much time as they have in the House, when they are innocent victims? Does he accept also that the details of compensation arrangements are crucial and not minor matters, and that they should properly be subject to the affirmative procedure?

Mr. Baker: The time of the House is necessarily limited—

Mr. Peter Atkinson: By what?

Mr. Baker: For one thing, there are only so many hours in the day.

Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that the Order Paper clearly indicates that there is no limitation on time for this debate, or happily on the one that is to follow?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no time limitation if the House agrees the 10 o'clock motion. I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows that his intervention is unnecessary. The context in which the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) made his point was perfectly clear.

Mr. Baker: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your stout defence. I shall try to remember the interventions and return to them. I do not want to lose the points.
The time of the House is limited in the sense that there are 24 hours a day and seven days in a week, and many matters can be brought before the House. For example, the Minister, who is sitting in his place patiently, might be at Lewes dealing with the 400 people who have been evacuated from their houses, and with businesses that have been driven out of the area by the recent floods. However, he is in his place and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is falling into a similar trap to the one that I have just described.

Mr. Baker: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I accept your stricture.
I return to the intervention of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), on which I was invited to comment. Of course our respect is mutual. I agree that the statutory instruments should be amendable under the affirmative procedure. It is a point that I have often made in the House. The point goes wider than this debate and the amendment. I will not stray further down that road. The Government should agree that it is in their interests to adopt the affirmative procedure in the interests of good legislation, rather than have errors creep in subsequently.
The hon. Member for Hexham described the Bill—I believe that I am right—as "deeply illiberal". As a Liberal, I do not regard it as such. I recognise that there is a balance to be struck. Rights are being removed from individuals and the House should be extremely careful when it takes that course. Equally, there are significant public ethic issues to be addressed. The majority of the


population believe that fur farming is unethical, and the Government have responded to that. I believe that the correct balance has been struck.
The compensation scheme has featured in much of the discussion so far. There are inconsistencies in the way in which compensation matters are dealt with now, and historically. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) talked about head deboning. The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) talked about quarantine, quite rightly. We are talking about people who have had their businesses slashed. The number of customers who will use their kennels has been significantly reduced. It is proper to bring that issue into the debate. I accept that there is no compensation in that case. However, there was no compensation for the thousands of miners who had their livelihoods removed by the Conservative Government, who implemented a vindictive policy through the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
It is difficult to argue for a rigorous compensation scheme that is absolutely watertight when the same principles have not been applied in other instances.

Mr. Forth: My memory may be failing me. I find that I have more senile moments as time passes. However, I recall that miners received very generous compensation or redundancy packages when their livelihoods were removed. I would be surprised if the hon. Gentleman cannot remember that.

Mr. Baker: That is not my recollection. However, I shall pass on the right hon. Gentleman's comments to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). They can discuss whether the miners received a generous compensation package.
Compensation has been the issue. I think that Members should accept the assurances that we have received from Ministers. As I have said, I agree with the hon. Member for Buckingham that statutory instruments should be amendable by being subject to the affirmative procedure. However, that is not how legislation works. The procedure was not changed in 18 years of Conservative Government. Surely it is rather difficult for them to argue that the procedures are not right now. They did not seek to change them when they were in government for such a long time.
We should try to make progress. I shall shortly resume my place to make my contribution towards that end. I say gently to the Opposition that I, along with many others, do not equate the length of speeches to the effectiveness of opposition. If they were to make more effective points rather more succinctly, the Government might be more sympathetic towards them. Perhaps they might apply that tactic on occasion.
The Bill has been a long time coming, and many people want to see it enacted. The amendments are satisfactory and I hope that we will not continue to make mountains out of molehills. Let us treat the issues seriously, seek assurances from Ministers and seek also to make progress.

Mr. Gummer: A point that has only recently been touched on worries me. I need to raise it, given my experience. It is—[Interruption.] When the hon. Member

for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) hears the point, she will understand why I am raising it. When I was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I was concerned with compensation for those who were in Land Settlement Association areas. [Interruption.] If the hon. Members for Basildon (Angela Smith) and for Garston waited a moment, they would have found that one sometimes apologises for getting things wrong. We got something wrong when we specified that the compensation would not attract taxation. Under those circumstances, people who had been defrauded of much of their livelihood as a result of the appalling manner in which the Land Settlement Association had been run expected to get compensation under a scheme that was clear to the public, unlike the scheme that we are now considering. Those people then found themselves without that compensation because the Inland Revenue demanded that some of it should come back to the Revenue in taxation.
6.30 pm
I am sure that the Minister will not repeat that mistake. However, a problem arises as a result of amendment No. 5. which inserts into clause 5 the words "income losses". By changing the original language of the clause, it may well be that that which would not have been taxable has become taxable. I have a fundamental reason for raising this matter. When the Minister puts into operation what, I am sure, will be an honourable and decent scheme, he will be given the gross figures involved, so he may feel that the compensation is perfectly reasonable. However, once taxation is applied, he may think otherwise.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend makes a serious point and I am familiar with the scheme to which he referred. Will he consider the suggestion that the Inland Revenue should be consulted on the scheme before it is published and should give clear guidance on its implications? All parties should be involved in those early discussions with the Revenue.

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the Minister can only assent to my right hon. Friend's suggestion, as this matter raises considerable difficulties. The Minister will know that several of my right hon. Friends and I are still fighting a case that ought to have been sorted out about 12 years ago. The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) rightly underlined the fact that, philosophically, the concerns of one of Her Majesty's subjects are as important as those of 1 million. I believe that that is a practical as well as a philosophical argument, because if the House is here for anything, it is to defend individuals, especially those who do not happen to be very popular. I am afraid that fur farmers are such individuals. None the less, they have been carrying out what, until now, was a perfectly legal activity which, in almost every other country, is still legitimate.

Mr. Hogg: Including the European Union.

Mr. Gummer: Those countries include our colleagues in the European Union, and many arguments about the Bill derive from that point.
Those people ought not to be denied what they might reasonably expect from compensation, which is why I find it difficult to accept the Lords amendments. The Minister


will have to explain why we cannot know more about the sums involved and the kind of circumstances in which he hopes to act. However, he must make certain things absolutely clear, and, in that regard, I am not sure whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) went far enough in asking for a pre-discussion with the Inland Revenue. I know perfectly well that, if that discussion took place without ministerial direction, the Inland Revenue would say that income losses meant losses of income and, in that case, must attract income tax. That is unacceptable in the circumstances because the losses of income are, by their nature, putative, whereas income is something that one actually gets. I have always thought it unfair to equate those things as plainly as the Inland Revenue does, but it will do that unless the Minister makes the matter clear beforehand. For that to happen, he must make an agreement before he fixes any figures.

Mr. Bercow: There is a compelling moral case for the compensation to be tax free. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that if the compensation or part thereof is in the form of a redundancy payment, it should be automatically tax free up to a certain level? It would be immensely helpful if the Minister made that clear in his winding-up speech.

Mr. Gummer: Under the wording of the amendment, the Inland Revenue would not accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). The amendment's wording is not as good as the original wording in the Bill, because it makes it more difficult for the Inland Revenue to take the view that my hon. Friend advocates. Income losses are given at a time when redundancy becomes inevitable as the result of legislation being passed.

Mr. Hogg: Building on that point, does my right hon. Friend agree that when a sum is decided, it is important that there is a clear apportionment of income losses and non-income losses, otherwise there is a serious risk that tax will be raised on non-income losses? If losses were clearly distinguished, there is a good argument for saying that the Inland Revenue should not raise any taxes on non-income losses, although it might have a claim on income losses.

Mr. Gummer: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. I am making this speech because, unless we make the matter clear, the mistakes of previous Labour and Conservative Governments in not making things plain in advance to the Land Settlement Association will be repeated. I am not saying that to be antagonistic, as I understand the Minister's problem. I do not share the position of those who have a particular view on fur farming. I do not have a constituency or other interest in the matter, although I am instinctively on the side of those who feel that they are being bullied or who may, in fact, be bullied. Manifestly, those people have been bullied by those who thought that self-righteousness overcame the rule of law.
We do not come to the matter in happy circumstances. Some people who will not get compensation have already been driven from their jobs by those who thought that they had the right to do that in a free country. I have risen to reiterate the role of a Member of Parliament and defend

people in those circumstances. Will the Minister assure us that he will make clear the distinction that I have drawn? Will he make a clear, public statement about what the Inland Revenue intends to do, and will he seek to lessen, if not stop, any calculation of income tax on compensation?
I hope that the Minister will go further and deal with the other part of the problem. In the case of non-income losses, will he assure the House that he will be as generous as possible? One should always be generous when asserting one's right to moral superiority. Those people who will lose their jobs do not agree with the decision that the House of Commons and the House of Lords are about to take. We are doing something extremely difficult and asserting that our moral understanding is superior to theirs, whether that is or is not the case. In those circumstances, if we are not to be thought extremely self-righteous, we need to be particularly generous in compensating those whom we are disadvantaging in this way. The House must recognise the seriousness of the issue.
I hope that, given the number of people concerned, the Minister will conclude that generosity should mark his decisions, and that it should extend to a group not known for their generosity—the Inland Revenue commissioners. Were he to do so, he would avoid many years of altercation on the matter and, given the moral opprobrium that has been placed upon these perfectly legitimate businesses, he would gain a reputation as someone who understood the delicacy of the matter.

Mr. Morley: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) for his support, particularly on the Government's intention to ensure that compensation is fair.
I understand the point made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) on the tax treatment of compensation payments. That will depend on the arrangements set up under the compensation scheme, which will be subject to consultation, but I have asked Ministry officials to ensure that they liaise with the Inland Revenue on the tax consequences when the details of the scheme are being worked out. I hope that that reassures the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gummer: Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to say that when his officials liaise on that matter, they will also liaise on the Land Settlement Association issue, so that it can be cleared up at the same time?

Mr. Morley: The right hon. Gentleman strays beyond the bounds of this narrow debate.
I gently remind the right hon. Gentleman that the previous Administration were responsible for the banning of sow stalls and tethers. There were sound veterinary arguments for that, but also ethical and moral issues concerning the way in which we treat animals. Farmers who switched into those systems received no compensation. In contrast, this Bill does provide compensation.
The hon. Members for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), asked about the details of the scheme. The compensation scheme was much debated on Second Reading and in Committee, when some of the thinking behind the scheme was set


out. However, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst takes seriously the scrutiny of measures such as this, as he is entitled to do, so I shall try to answer his questions.
This is enabling legislation and it is common for such measures to provide for a compensation scheme. The nature of the compensation scheme will be subject to consultation and it will be approved by negative resolution. That is the normal procedure, as it was under the previous Administration. The consultation procedure will be open and public, and people will be able to make their views known. The fur farmers, the people most directly involved, will be part of that.

Mr. Forth: I invite the hon. Gentleman to go a little further and undertake, on behalf of the Government, that when the matter returns in the form of a statutory instrument, if it is prayed against the Government will provide time for it to be debated.

Mr. Morley: The right hon. Gentleman is an extremely experienced Member and he knows that I shall follow the long-standing procedures which are laid down by the House.
The calculation of income losses will be on the basis of, for example, loss of trading profits, the overall financial state of the industry and its prospects and the individual condition of each business. Non-income losses will include matters such as buildings, equipment, breeding stock and young stock for slaughter. No compensation should be required for the land as it has alternative uses. Compensation may be required for buildings and equipment that do not have alternative uses. A range of other matters could be included in determining compensation, and they were dealt with on Second Reading and in Committee.

Mr. Forth: I am disappointed that the Minister has just said that no compensation will be allowed for land because it has alternative uses. Does he accept that it is conceivable that some land might not have any alternative use, as in the case referred to of the concreted-over land, or that, even where land had an alternative use, it might be far less valuable? Is he really saying—even before consultation—that the scheme that he envisages will not include any element of compensation for the value of land?

Mr. Morley: If fur farmers feel that no use whatever can be made of their land, I am sure that they will make that point in the consultation. However, generally speaking I do not accept that. The hon. Member for Hexham referred to the concrete bases, but in the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) the strawberries are grown on tables under low sheds, laid out in exactly the same way as fur farms. I have been to such strawberry farms and they are commercially successful. I am not saying that all fur farmers could convert to such a business, but it is an option which could be considered.

Mr. Hogg: The Minister will have to reconsider the matter because fur farming is an intensive activity and

relatively small areas of land can be used profitably. If fur farming is prohibited, the owner of that land may not be able to find an alternative intensive use. The land might be sold only as ordinary arable land, which would yield much less profit, so the capital value would be much lower. The Minister's response is unsatisfactory.

Mr. Morley: The strawberry farm is an example of a relatively small area of land being used intensively and profitably. However, each fur farmer will have different circumstances and different issues to raise, and that is why there can be no catch-all measure at this stage. Therefore, it is right and proper that the Bill should be an enabling measure so that such matters can be taken into account during the consultation.
I can also confirm to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that the Lands Tribunal will be a process of appeal, and there will be the option of arbitration before the Lands Tribunal, which again is a new measure. We accept that the process will give rise to certain costs, such as the demolition of buildings, which fur farmers may legitimately argue should be covered by the compensation scheme, and we shall give sympathetic consideration to that.
The consultation process has already started and we are trying to make progress. As soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, independent assessors will talk to fur farmers. We expect to be able to consult the industry in the spring on the detail of the compensation scheme following the examination of their books. That will take between eight and nine months and preparation will be able to proceed even during the statutory two-month period after Royal Assent. I understand that the fur farmers want to make progress and we shall do all that we can to ensure that.
I was surprised by the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham in relation to head deboners that matters might have been different had human rights legislation existed at that time which required him to give compensation. He could have given that compensation had he chosen to do so, but he chose not to. Following discussion on the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston, I made it clear that the Government would include a provision for compensation for income lost. I was under no obligation to do so at the time, but I endeavoured to put in place a fair compensation scheme in consultation with my hon. Friend and the National Farmers Union. As it happens, it was felt in the other place that that provision should be firmer and that there should be a requirement to compensate for income. That is what the amendments tabled there seek to achieve. We do not oppose them and recommend their acceptance.
Amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 2 would not have the effect that I suspect was intended by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. As he spelled out, they would remove the Minister's discretion to be selective in determining the businesses that are eligible for compensation through their closure under the Bill. Furthermore, they would require the Minister to compensate all businesses that carry out the banned activities. We have already said that we intend to provide a compensation scheme that is fair and reasonable to the businesses that close because of the Bill, following either Royal Assent or the effecting of a commencement order not before 1 January.
Amendment (b) would require the Government to provide compensation to all businesses carrying out the banned activities. However, the Government have announced that only fur farming businesses that existed on 2 March 1999 will be eligible to claim compensation. On 30 November 1999, fur farmers were reminded in writing of that cut-off, which was announced when my hon. Friend the Member for Garston presented her private Member's Bill. It was stated that any fur farm established after the cut-off date or which closed down before Royal Assent would not be eligible for compensation. The Government must, therefore, have discretion to limit, in the way that I have described, the businesses eligible for compensation. Amendment (b) would remove that discretion and, if accepted, could mean that fur farms that were abandoned years ago and are standing empty could be opened up and so be eligible for compensation.

Mr. Hogg: I am not sure that the Parliamentary Secretary is right. If he reads the amendment, he will see that only those who were rendered illegal and caught by the prohibition would attract compensation. However, that is not my main point. Why does the Bill contain the explicit statement that compensation need not be paid in respect of all income losses and non-income losses, or, indeed, in respect of all businesses? The Parliamentary Secretary has released himself from any obligation.

Mr. Morley: It is important to allow some discretion in the application of the provision, especially with regard to businesses that are in operation after the cut-off date. That is the primary reason for the wording of the provision; it is also why I cannot agree to proposed amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 2. I am sure that hon. Members would not want those amendments to take effect, as they would not safeguard public funds. We do not intend people who are involved in fur farming after the cut-off date to receive compensation.

Mr. Gummer: Will the Parliamentary Secretary repeat his remarks? I suspect that hon. Members have not followed them. Is he saying that the only reason why he does not tie himself to providing compensation in all circumstances is that he might have to provide it for people whose businesses opened after the due date? If that is the case, why is not his intention made clear in the Bill? Will he now express it clearly so that fur farmers know that they have entitlement in all circumstances and in relation to all businesses and all other activities related to the Bill, the only possible obstruction being the wrong dates?

Mr. Morley: The right hon. Gentleman's comments show why the wording is as it is. He used the phrase "all other businesses", but, as a former Minister, he will understand the need for Bills to be properly worded. A fur farmer could own a business that is not directly connected with fur farming, and, unless the provision is worded properly, a claim could be made for that business. The wording is intended to ensure that compensation is geared to fur farming and to business that is directly involved with it. It should not involve unrelated businesses or those that started after the cut-off date.
It has been disappointing to see in some quarters a right-wing opinion suggesting that we cannot take an ethical view on the treatment of animals. Ethics seem to

be a bit different with regard to matters such as the age of consent. I make no apology for taking an ethical view on behalf of the Government on the way in which we treat animals. Significant welfare concerns have been expressed about the rearing of animals in fur farming systems. For example, mink are semi-aquatic animals and are used to wandering over large ranges and having access to water, so they should not be kept in barren wire cages. We know of examples in which mink have gnawed off their tails because of the frustration of being kept in such conditions.

Mr. Hogg: What about chickens?

Mr. Morley: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, such issues arise also with regard to other intensive rearing systems, which is why they are all being examined. However, the issue of fur farming goes beyond welfare. I doubt whether some of the anxieties that have been expressed about welfare could be addressed in a commercial fur farming system.
We are introducing the Bill because fur farming is a moral issue; opposition to such farming is based on morality. The fur farming industry does not provide for basic needs and does not justify the killing of an animal. In a modern society, fur farming has no justification in terms of need. There are alternatives to this form of farming, which is not justifiable. For those reasons, I hope that hon. Members will not support the amendments tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and that they will give the Bill the support that it deserves.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 3, line 20, leave out from ("scheme") to ("of') in line 22 and insert

("shall, in particular, specify—


(a) the description or descriptions of income losses and the description or descriptions of non-income losses in respect of which payments are to be made, and
(b) the description or descriptions of businesses in respect of which payments are to be made,

but need not provide for the making of payments in respect of all income losses or all non-income losses or (as the case may be) in respect of all businesses.

() A scheme shall also, in particular—

() specify the basis or bases")

Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (b), in line 8, leave out "but need not" and insert "and shall".—[Mr. Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 27, Noes 303.

Division No. 351]
[6.58 pm


AYES


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gray, James


Beggs, Roy
Grieve, Dominic


Bercow, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Hunter, Andrew


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Leigh, Edward


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


(Rushcliffe)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Curry, Rt Hon David
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Gale, Roger
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Gill, Christopher
Maclean, Rt Hon David






Moss, Malcolm
Whittingdale, John


Robathan, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Robertson, Laurence



Swayne, Desmond
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mr. Douglas Hogg and


Tyrie, Andrew
Mr. Eric Forth.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cohen, Harry


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Coleman, Iain


Ainger, Nick
Cooper, Yvette


Alexander, Douglas
Corbyn, Jeremy


Allen, Graham
Corston, Jean


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cousins, Jim


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cox, Tom


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Crausby, David


Ashton, Joe
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Atkins, Charlotte
Cummings, John


Baker, Norman
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Ballard, Jackie
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Banks, Tony
Darvill, Keith


Barnes, Harry
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Barron, Kevin
Davidson, Ian


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Begg, Miss Anne
Denham, John


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Dismore, Andrew


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Donohoe, Brian H


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Doran, Frank


Bennett, Andrew F
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Benton, Joe
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)



Berminghan, Gerald
Edwards, Huw


Best, Harold
Efford, Clive


Betts, Clive
Ennis, Jeff


Blackman, Liz
Etherington, Bill


Blizzard, Bob
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Flint, Caroline


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Flynn, Paul


Bradshaw, Ben
Follett, Barbara


Barand, Dr Peter
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Foulkes, George


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Galloway, George


Buck, Ms Karen
Gardiner, Barry


Burden, Richard
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Burgon, Colin
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Burstow, Paul
Gerrard, Neil


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gibson, Dr Ian


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Gidley, Sandra


Cable, Dr Vincent
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies
Goggins, Paul


(NE Fife)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cann, Jamie
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caplin, Ivor
Grocott, Bruce


Casale, Roger
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Caton, Martin
Hancock, Mike


Cawsey, Ian
Hanson, David


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Harvey, Nick


Chaytor, David
Healey, John


Chidgey, David
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clapham, Michael
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clark, Dr Lynda
Hepburn, Stephen


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Heppell, John


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hesford, Stephen


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hinchliffe, David


Clelland, David
Hood, Jimmy


Clwyd, Ann
Hope, Phil


Coaker, Vernon
Hopkins, Kelvin


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)





Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mudie, George


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mullin, Chris


Hurst, Alan
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hutton, John
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Illsley, Eric
Norris, Dan


Jackson, Ms Glenda(Hampstead)
Oaten, Mark


Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)
O'Brien, Bill(Normanton)


Jamieson, David
O'Brien, Mike(N Warks)


Jenkins, Brian
Olner, Bill


Johnson, Alan(Hull W & Hessle)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Pearson, Ian


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Ms Jenny
Plaskitt, James


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pound, Stephen


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Primarolo, Dawn


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prosser, Gwyn


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Purchase, Ken


Keetch, Paul
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Kemp, Fraser
Raynsford, Nick


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


(Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Rendel, David


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Khabra, Piara S
Rogers, Allan


Kidney, David
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Rooney, Terry


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Rowlands, Ted


Kingham, Ms Tess
Ruane, Chris


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Ruddock, Joan


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Lammy, David
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Salter, Martin


Lepper, David
Sanders, Adrian


Lislie, Christopher
Sawford, Phil


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Sedgemore, Brian


Livsey, Richard
Shaw, Jonathan


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Sheerman, Barry


Llwyd, Elfyn
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lock, David
Shipley, Ms Debra


Love, Andrew
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McAvoy, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McDonell, John
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McNulty, Tony
Soley, Clive


Macshane, Denis

Squire, Ms Rachel


Mactaggart, Fiona



McWalter, Tony
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Steinberg, Gerry


Mallaber, Judy
Stevenson, George


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Martlew, Eric
Stoate, Dr Howard


Maxton, John
Stringer, Graham


Meale, Alan
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Merron, Gillian
Stunell, Andrew


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
(Dewsbury)


Mitchell, Austin
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Moffatt, Laura
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Moore, Michael
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Morley, Elliot
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle
Thomas, Gareth R (Ceredigion)


(B'ham Yardley)
Timms, Stephen


Mountford, Kali







Tipping, Paddy
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Touhig, Don
(Swansea W)


Trickett, Jon
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Truswell, Paul

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Winnick, David


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Woodward, Shaun


Tyler, Paul
Worthington, Tony


Vis, Dr Rudi
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Ward, Ms Claire
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Wareing, Robert N
Wyatt, Derek


Webb, Steve
Tellers for the Noes:


Welsh, Andrew
Mr. Mike Hall and


White, Brian
Mr. Jim Dowd.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to [Special Entry].

Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 5 agreed to [one with Special Entry].

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Cross-Border Public Authorities) (Adaptation of Functions etc.) (No. 2) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be approved.

That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) (No. 2) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be approved.

That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modifications of Schedule 5) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Business of the House

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
That, at this day's sitting and the sittings on Thursday 23rd and Monday 27th November, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords shall be received.
I am pleased to move this motion, which is extremely narrow in scope, stating that the House should not adjourn today, tomorrow or on Monday until any messages are received from the other place. The motion is perfectly standard. Many of those who have been Members for some years will have seen similar motions. The motion is in the interests—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Will hon. Members who are not staying for this debate please leave quickly and quietly?

Mr. Tipping: The motion is in the interests of all Members, especially the Opposition, because it will allow us to keep the House open until the messages are received. That will allow any message to be printed in the Order Paper so that Members have an opportunity to understand what they have to discuss. Standing Order No. 78, as many hon. Members will know, gives the House leave to take Lords amendments forthwith, so it is technically possible for any amendment received to be debated at a convenient time.

Mr. Eric Forth: Can the Minister confirm that it is perfectly possible for Lords messages to be included in the following day's business without the need for such measures and that things could therefore be done in a proper way?

Mr. Tipping: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is not implying that the motion is not entirely proper. It is in order and perfectly proper. He knows that there are different ways and procedures in the House, and he has suggested an alternative. The motion will simply allow the messages that come from the Lords to be printed in the Order Paper for the benefit of all Members. We had the example of Members tabling amendments to Lords amendments for the previous debate. The motion will not inconvenience Members. Technically, the House does not sit until the message arrives and we reconvene. There are precedents for the motion, which is in the interests of all Members, especially the Opposition, and will not inconvenience any Member.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: As I understand it, technically the House could sit, but it will not do so. Surely if that is the case, we could fill the idle hours with many debates that might be of interest to the hon. Gentleman. For example, he might like to discuss the desirability of excluding sugar from the everything but arms initiative. Could we discuss that matter? Perhaps he would confirm whether we could debate a motion on the European rapid reaction force, so that the Government could gauge the opinion of the House in a full debate?


Will he confirm that if he were so minded, we could have an opportunity to debate such matters while the House awaited messages from the other place?

Mr. Tipping: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, and many of his hon. Friends, take many opportunities to discuss various issues. I have had the benefit of listening to some of his comments today. I acknowledge the point that he makes: hon. Members wish to discuss many matters. The motion will provide a framework for the orderly discussion of Lords amendments.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: We always know when the Government have got themselves into difficulty—it is the moment when they send in the Minister, who, with his normal courtesy, kindness and politeness, comes along and spreads a bit of emollient to try to disguise the fact that their legislative programme is in the most terrible mess, with appalling consequences for the way in which the House conducts its scrutiny.
The state opening of the new Session is projected for Wednesday week, but important legislation still has to return to the House from the other place, and, as the Minister has admitted, the purpose of the motion is to facilitate that process. The Opposition might be happy to facilitate that process if the only consequence were that the House would have adequate time to scrutinise the legislation. However, as was made clear yesterday with the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, when the House waits for Bills to return and considers them—as the motion invites it to do—what happens is a complete charade.
We recently heard that, on the Government's initiative, the House is planning to timetable legislation. Would that it were true that we had an adequate timetable. Yesterday there was inadequate time for debate. The debate was subject to a guillotine, which was scandalous. At the end, dozens of amendments remained to be considered, and the House could not even express its view properly on some of the amendments that had been debated. The motion seems likely to facilitate the repetition of exactly the same thing in the coming days.
The Minister knows very well that legislation on the scale of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill—a measure that is engraved on his heart and on mine, and which is being considered at this very moment in another place—will require a great deal of scrutiny. We are told that the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill is likely to return with hundreds of Government amendments.
The motion is designed, as I understand it, to facilitate the rapid consideration of such messages from the Lords and, if legislation is sent back after being considered by the House, further messages from the Lords. Haste makes for bad scrutiny, and the Minister knows it. In those circumstances, it would be much better if the Government admitted that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, time is required

for messages to be considered in the perfectly ordinary course of events, to allow the House to respond to those messages and consider legislation properly.

Mr. Tipping: rose—

Mr. Grieve: If the state opening of Parliament has to be delayed, so be it. We are making a mockery of the trust placed in us by the electorate to scrutinise legislation properly.
A moment ago, I detected that the Minister wanted to intervene. If he wants to do so, I shall be happy to give way.

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Mr. Grieve: I am happy to give way to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that we are being asked to waste a great deal of time because sittings will be suspended while we wait at the convenience of their lordships? I do not particularly mind doing that, but I do mind wasting time. Can he confirm that it would be perfectly possible for the Leader of the House to table a business motion on Monday whereby, during the sittings that would otherwise be suspended, we could debate important matters, such as the European rapid reaction force and the EBA sugar initiative, and a few others that I have in mind?.

Mr. David Davis: French beef.

Mr. Hogg: Indeed, French beef. That would be a much more productive use of our time than simply suspending the sitting.

Mr. Grieve: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. We could make productive use of the time. Alternatively, if the Government do not want to do that, they could cease to proceed with the motion and allow business to be conducted in an orderly and sensible manner; then we could do what some Labour MPs apparently enjoy doing, such as going off to their constituencies. Instead of being on permanent standby, the House should not sit on days when it is not necessary. When it does, it reminds me of those buttons on our television sets that we are told to switch off because they consume so much energy.

Mr. Forth: Following the intervention of our right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), does my hon. Friend accept that one of the other advantages of the procedure that he described would be that the debates would take place here in the Chamber, instead of being shunted off to that pathetic sideshow known as Westminster Hall? We could turn the terms of the motion into something positive for the House of Commons.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has gone way outside the terms of this narrow motion, and I advise his hon. Friend not to respond.

Mr. Grieve: My right hon. Friend is a man of creative ingenuity, and the Minister should definitely take his


words on board. He makes a lot of sense when he talks about the House proceeding with sensible scrutiny. However, I shall return to the narrow wording of the motion.
I shall not labour the points that I want to make; I simply say to the Minister that he is asking the House to place itself in a state of permanent standby. Perhaps the House would be prepared to do that if we had any confidence that at the end of the day we would have a proper opportunity to debate serious business when it became available. The reality of the past two weeks has been other. Yesterday highlighted a woeful deficiency in the legislative process, and everything suggests that in the coming week we will be subjected to a similar situation. The country deserves better.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: When I see such a motion, I rise to speak with some apprehension. I suspect that it is a device for getting business hastily through the House instead of proceeding in the orderly way that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) suggested. I would be much more willing to support the business motion if the Government were to give an undertaking that messages received from the other place to be discussed in this House would be the subject of proper and full discussion, rather than being timetabled.
If the Government were to give us an undertaking to that effect, I would be a great deal more sympathetic to what the deputy Leader of the House proposes. A number of important Bills are being dealt with in the other place, and they will no doubt be the subject of messages. One is the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, and another may be the Disqualifications Bill—I mention just two. It is likely that the House will want to discuss fully and properly the many scores, if not hundreds, of amendments that will appear from the other place.
As I understand it, this procedure will enable the Government to rush through discussion of that legislation. As this will be the first time that this House collectively has had an opportunity to discuss the amendments that will the subject of the messages, we need to have proper time for reflection. If hon. Members agree with me on that point—being true democrats, Conservative Members will do so—they should have no truck with this business motion.

Mr. Forth: Given the amount of hard work that their Lordships are doing, can my right hon. and learned Friend envisage circumstances in which a message may come from the other place very late in the evening and be placed on the Order Paper under this dubious procedure? How would Members of this House be able to table amendments to those messages in those circumstances? Is there not an element of subterfuge?

Mr. Hogg: That is exactly what I was worried about. If a message comes late one night and the Government have it in mind that we should debate the matter the following day, there will be no opportunity to consult, or be consulted by, the relevant interest groups. Consequently, the amendments that may have been appropriate will not be tabled. That is the inevitable

consequence of accepting this business motion, whereas if we do not accept it, we will gain a day or two and have proper time for reflection.

Mr. David Maclean: My point was similar to that made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I would go further and say that a message may be received from the Lords very late on Wednesday night as they work into Thursday morning. As this House meets at 11.30 on a Thursday morning, there would be even less time for hon. Members to consider business received from the Lords at 3 o'clock in the morning.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. I do not want to attribute an evil motive to those on the Government Front Bench, but if I were in the Government Whips Office—thank God I shall never be a Government Whip again—I would at least reflect on the possibility of so arranging the timing of a message that it achieved the consequence, and had the effect, that my right hon. Friend describes.

Mr. John Bercow: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the problem of a potential shortage of time is especially acute in the context of the Freedom of Information Bill? I feel sure that it was only an error of omission that prevented him from mentioning that legislation in his list of dubious and ill-fated Bills.

Mr. Hogg: It was actually because I do not like trying your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I know that your patience is easily tried. My hon. Friend is wholly correct. The Freedom of Information Bill may well be one of the beneficiaries—from the Government's perspective—of this business motion.
We want to make it absolutely plain to the House that the purpose of the business motion, or at least its consequence, is to enable the Government to push through business rapidly, without hon. Members having a proper opportunity to consult the interest groups that may be affected, or even to discuss among ourselves what our policy and attitudes should be. On that basis, it is objectionable.
I think that the motion is objectionable and that is the end of the matter—but one or two things could make it marginally less objectionable. One of them I have already alluded to briefly, and that is an undertaking from the Government. They should undertake to the House to allow us to sit late the succeeding day—the day of the substantive debate—until 2 o'clock in the morning, for example, which was perfectly usual when I first came to the House, and did not cause undue inconvenience. One merely went away if one did not want to be here: we were independent Members in those days. That would be one way of addressing the matter.
The other way would be to give a formal undertaking to the House that there will not be any timetabling, and that we will be able to debate matters fully. Speaking for myself, if the Government gave an undertaking to that effect, I would be more minded to accept the business motion than I would otherwise be.

Mr. David Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am persuaded by my right hon. and learned


Friend's arguments—with one exception. I do not think that the House should be put in the position of having to take the Minister's word on a matter of such serious consequence and interest. We have had no opportunity to amend this motion because of the timing of it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. It is a point of argument.

Mr. Hogg: I was suggesting that we could get an undertaking from the Government. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) is a perfectly respectable Minister. I would take an undertaking from him, and would regard it as copper-bottomed, so I am looking forward to receiving such an undertaking.
The Minister could also make the proposal more agreeable to us in another way—by filling those empty hours. We on the Conservative Benches are a hardworking lot. Considering our relatively small number, it is noteworthy how the Conservative Benches have been more densely populated than the Labour Benches this evening—except, of course, when the Division comes, when, not having listened to the debate, all these characters come out of all the crannies of this place and do what their Whips tell them. That is one of the reasons why the House is held in such low esteem in the country. However, if we were able to fill the idle hours contemplated by Ministers with useful discussion, we might be more willing to pass the business motion.
I have taken a little advice on the matter because I do not like to talk absolute tommy-rot on these occasions. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) laughs. I assure him that that is true. It would be possible for the Leader of the House, tomorrow, say, to indicate a willingness to table a business motion to enable us to discuss on the Floor of the House substantive issues on a timed basis—say an hour, an hour and a half or whatever—to fill the time when the House would otherwise stand suspended.
I suppose that it would have to be a term of the business motion that we would resume the substantive business within a stated time of receiving a message, but speaking for myself, I am willing to help the Leader of the House with the drafting. I wish to be constructive, and I know that she does not think very constructively. A little help from Conservative Members might be of value.
I suggest to the deputy Leader of the House, who is just about to go to sleep—I would not dare wake him up—that there are a number of subjects on which he could give an undertaking. I saw him in Westminster Hall yesterday; it was the first time that I had ever been into Westminster Hall for the purpose of making a speech. It was an interesting occasion. We discussed sugar. I saw that he was deeply concerned about the sugar regime, and the fact that the everything but arms initiative, which is supported by the Government, will ruin sugar producers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is going way beyond the terms of the motion. I have already heard him advert to that particular matter, and I do not wish to hear him advert to it again.

Mr. Hogg: Of course I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not dream of doing otherwise, but my

point is—I am sure that you were the first to grasp it—that if the business motion is passed, there will be periods when although the House is suspended, hon. Members are present.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have indeed heard that argument, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman first placed it before me during an intervention. He cannot go on repeating it.

Mr. Hogg: It would be shameful of me even to think of going on repeating it, but there are one or two illustrations that might prove attractive to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The arguments that are advanced have nothing to do with me. There is no point of order involved for the occupant of the Chair. I have to ensure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not in breach of Standing Orders about repetition, or going outside the terms of the motion.

Mr. Hogg: I was not raising a point of order, but I was conscious that all observations on the Floor of the House are directed to the Chair and through the Chair. That is all I was doing—I was speaking to the Chamber through you.

Mr. Maclean: I would not wish my right hon. and learned Friend in any circumstances to disobey the instructions of the occupant of the Chair. Of course, he must not go down the route of repetition, as I have sometimes—but I have not fully understood his argument. Is it possible for him to state his argument in such terms that it is not repetitive, but we can fully grasp the concept?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is wholly mischievous.

Mr. Hogg: I would never accuse my right hon. Friend of being mischievous. Sometimes, he has not followed the argument as clearly as I would wish—but mischievous? Surely not.
The point that I was seeking to make is that the House wants to make constructive use of the time. We are being asked to sit on our backsides doing nothing, probably in the bar, or in our offices. That is not a sensible use of our time when we have the possibility of discussing substantive business.
I will not mention sugar again, because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have told me not to. I imagine that if I mention the European rapid reaction force, you will tell me that I should not develop that argument either, save to say that today, the Government made a far-reaching policy statement, which has not received the authority of the House; the House has not been asked to vote its approval of the proposal. We could do that on Monday or Tuesday if the Government let us.
One can take advantage of otherwise empty hours to discuss substantive business. That is the proper way to make progress, so let us have an undertaking that there will be no guillotines. Let the House consider, and perhaps vote on, whether we should have the business motion at all, but the motion would be more acceptable to us if we were going to use our hours profitably, and not in the idle way that Ministers want us to use them.

Mr. Eric Forth: The trouble with this type of motion and the way in which the Minister has presented it is that we know no more now than we did before about why the Government feel compelled to bring it before the House. He said in his beguiling and rather charming way that it is narrow and standard. That is ministerial code for, "I hope that the debate will not go on for long or be discussed much. I wish that it were all over very quickly." I bet he does, because lying behind this innocent-looking motion is quite a lot of history.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will judge how far it is appropriate to go into the history. Suffice to say that the reason why the Government have felt compelled to come forward with a procedural motion at this stage—it is the only conclusion that I can draw, subject to the Minister correcting me—is because there is a substantial amount of business in another place, which will come here in the form of messages, and which, therefore, the Government must deal with in an unusual and extraordinary way. That is the key to all this.
If the Government were in full control of their legislative programme—if they had managed that programme properly—those matters could come to the House in the normal way and be dealt with properly, but what underlies the motion is the fact that the Government know that that cannot be the case, or at least they think that it cannot be the case. They are placing the House under an artificial and unnecessary time constraint and, therefore, must bring forward this extraordinary measure.
For the moment, I will leave to one side the fact that it is odd that the Government have gone to enormous lengths to seek to change the Standing Orders of the House, so that the House cannot vote after 10 o'clock at night, yet, in the business motion, it appears that the Government are prepared to ask for the House not to be adjourned until messages are received without time limit. That contradicts the proposal to which they attached such great importance just two weeks ago.

Mr. Hogg: Surely the following argument follows on from that of my right hon. Friend. The Government have often said that it is bad government and makes for bad law to debate matters after 10 o'clock—I do not happen to believe that; none the less, that is the Government's position—but the effect of the business motion is to oblige us to make law after 10 o'clock.

Mr. Forth: Indeed. As we know, messages are part of the law-making process—an integral part. I want to add to my right hon. and learned Friend's references the business that we know will come to this House in the form of messages from another place. The Countryside and Rights of Way Bill will come in our direction, as will the Freedom of Information Bill and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. We can be certain of all those—they must be the subject of at least some of the messages referred to in the motion.
What is not so certain is whether the Disqualifications Bill will be the subject of one of the messages. It is a Bill of which I know a little because in February this year I had the honour to participate in a debate on it. It took the House of Commons quite some time to deliberate on it. Whether it would be proper for that Bill, on which we

deliberated, from memory, for about 27 hours, to come back in the form of a message in that peremptory way and to be rushed through is another matter. Perhaps the Bill will be one to come in this direction.
Whether the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill would be subject to a message is also a matter for some speculation, but I need not speculate because you, Mr. Speaker, and I know that the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, the Freedom of Information Bill and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill are all in another place. They are an essential part of the Government's programme, and therefore—I think I am right, but the Minister may correct me—they must be involved in one of the messages that are to come from another place. Of that much I think we can be certain.
Here, however, the matter becomes more difficult. Indeed, if the Government are telling us that they think it proper for those substantial Bills, along with hundreds of amendments from another place, to be dealt with in the way suggested in the motion, the matter becomes improper. I use the word deliberately: I mean "improper" in terms of the legislative and deliberative process.
It would appear that the Government want to truncate, or compress, the time scale that would normally be available to the House in order to rush the legislative process. That must be entirely wrong, although I can see why they would want to do it. Their legislative programme is in a mess: they have far too much legislation, and we know that hundreds of amendments—mostly Government amendments—have been required in relation to those important Bills.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is now repeating his own argument. There cannot be endless repetition of the same point.

Mr. Forth: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I have explained why I used the word "improper"; but the position gets worse. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) pointed out, what we do not know from the motion is how it will work in practice. The motion simply states that
the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message …shall be received.
It does not tell us what constraints that may or may not place on the normal conduct of the House's business. It does not tell us whether a gap or hiatus would appear between the end of normal business and the House's not adjourning. Does this mean, for example, that Members will have to continue to be present—or can they continue to be present? Does anything lie procedurally beyond the normal finishing of business and waiting for the message?

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend has drawn our attention to the text of the motion. He will know that amendments can be tabled at any time before the Adjournment of the House, but not thereafter. According to the motion, it would be possible for the House to adjourn immediately after a message had been received. Consequently, there would be no gap between the receipt of the message and the Adjournment of the House. If that


were the case, no amendments could be tabled that night, and the business, unamended, could be discussed the following morning.

Mr. Forth: Indeed. That is probably one of the most sinister aspects of this piece of Government deviousness and jiggery-pokery.
In the normal course of events, the legislative process requires that when a message comes to us from another place, we can do what we did earlier this evening. We should be able to deliberate on the message, and then table amendments that may or may not be selected and subsequently debated. But, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham pointed out, none of that may be possible if the mechanism proposed in the motion is approved this evening.
We could find ourselves in an invidious position. No doubt the Government would be very comfortable with it: no doubt it is exactly what they want. I suggest that now they have got themselves into such a mess, and with messages coming from the other place in such a way, the last thing they want is for Members—their own, for all I know: not necessarily Opposition Members—to look at what is arriving here, and to decide whether they want to table amendments.

Mr. Bercow: If we are to know the extent of the constraints that we may face, we surely need to know the extent of the legislative consideration that the Government envisage. Given the mauling received by the Disqualifications Bill in another place, is not a Lords message in relation to that a real possibility? In that event, would not extensive consideration be required?

Mr. Forth: That must be so, although my judgment is different from my hon. Friend's: I suspect that the Disqualifications Bill might not come in our direction. We do not know, however, because the Minister has not shared any of these governmental secrets with us.
I am keeping an eye on the Government's Deputy Chief Whip, who seems to be haranguing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not want to interrupt, but Mr. Speaker recently deprecated the practice of Members' going to the side of the Chair and haranguing its occupants. I know that you would not stand for any of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker—especially from the Deputy Chief Whip.
Another question arises, which the motion does not begin to answer: no time limit is placed on the mechanism that it proposes. The motion suggests—indeed, mandates—that
the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords shall be received.
We know how late their Lordships have had to sit recently, given the mess that the Government's legislative programme is in and the excess of legislation and Government amendments in another place. It is fairly simple to deduce, in view of recent experience, that the House of Commons may be required not to adjourn until some very late hour. That raises another question: is it incumbent on Members to be available until that hour, or would the Government want us all to go home so that

some sinister process could take place late at night when we were all elsewhere, and not present to try to slip in an amendment even if we were able to do so?
It gets worse. It is not just that we might not be able to do that for reasons of timing. Would you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or the Government encourage Members to stay on the premises and to be alert to what was happening, or would we be told that we should all go home? That would leave us in a very odd position, which the public would not understand.
Will the cameras be switched on, showing the Chamber? How will the process work? How will the messages come? Will one of the Whips, with his wand, present the messages to an empty House, and will it be apparent by that stage that all Members have long since gone home? These are important questions, because they bear on whether Members will have a realistic opportunity to table amendments to the messages.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend has raised a serious point. It is desirable for Members to be available, in order to know what the messages are. Does that not reinforce the value of my suggestion that we should fill the idle hours, as it were, with substantive debates, so that Members are present, interested in the business of the House and ready to receive the messages because they will have something to discuss?

Mr. Forth: Indeed—and that is why my right hon. and learned Friend's suggestion is so helpful. It answers the point so often spuriously made by Labour Members that we do not have enough time to debate all the matters that we want to debate. That is one of the completely invalid reasons that the Government gave for the nonsense of Westminster Hall. Hot on the heels of the endorsement of Westminster Hall that we gave so misguidedly the other day, an opportunity has arisen for the first time. Were we to avail ourselves of that opportunity, we would have extra time for debate.
Having taken advice, my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out that it was well within the Government's power to table a business motion to give effect to that. We have heard nothing from the Minister, but I hope that he will rise to the challenge later.

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is clearly quite knowledgeable about these matters. Can he help me out?
What will be the status of the Adjournment debate? Will it be taken first, and will the House then be in suspended animation until a message is received before adjourning? Or will the House be suspended, receive a message, decide to adjourn, and then have the Adjournment debate? In the latter event, we might have half an hour in which to table amendments.

Mr. Forth: That is a possibility, but I do not want to give my right hon. Friend advice off the cuff, and I am sure that he would not wish me to guess on my feet—which, of course, I would not dream of doing. I will, however, allow myself to go so far as to speculate—unless you advise me otherwise, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that the motion raises an intriguing possibility. If normal business has been concluded, whether under a guillotine or not, and if the House does not adjourn until a message comes, it


might be possible for the Adjournment debate to proceed throughout the period between the completion of normal business and the arrival of the message.
Perhaps such a possibility would help my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. If we cannot debate a Government business motion, as he suggested, perhaps there could be, in the usual manner, albeit only on one pre-determined subject, a much lengthier Adjournment debate between the end of business and receipt of the message.

Mr. Hogg: Perhaps the Government could propose a general subject for debate on the Adjournment, rather like the old Consolidated Fund Bill or Christmas Adjournment debates. Such a debate would enable hon. Members, during otherwise wasted hours, to speak on any subject that they may have in mind.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a typically helpful suggestion—which, procedurally, would probably be do-able. However, if it were not do-able and the Government were not to accept it, and were we to be misguided enough to give the Government the carte blanche suggested in the motion—I hope that we do not; I shall certainly oppose it unless the Minister gives me much better reasons than he has so far—it may be that all we can salvage out of this episode is a series of intriguingly prolonged Adjournment debates on subjects that had already been accepted for debate in the usual way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already heard sufficient argument on that particular subject.

Mr. Forth: I was contemplating concluding my remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker; you may have hurried me a little along the way.

Mr. Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth: I hope that my right hon. Friend is not trying to prolong my remarks.

Mr. Maclean: Certainly not, as I hope that I might be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in due course.
Earlier, my right hon. Friend commented briefly on the proposal that there would be no voting after 10 o'clock and said that he would deal with that proposal later. As far as I can recall, he has failed to do that. I thought that it was a valid point that was relevant to the motion.

Mr. Forth: Because I am a generous chap, I shall voluntarily leave my right hon. Friend to elaborate on that point. Although I have oodles more material, I sense that I might be testing the patience of the House—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] Frankly, if looks could kill, the type of look that I am getting from the Government Deputy Chief Whip would have rendered me a corpse long ago. I do not think that I should push my luck too far. I certainly would not comment on your demeanour, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as that would be way out of order.
I want just to make one final point. If the Minister were to answer only one question from me, I hope that it would be this. Can he undertake that if the House agrees to the

motion today, he will guarantee that there is proper opportunity for hon. Members to table amendments to the content of messages from another place? Will he also spell that out to the House in advance, so that we all know how that can be done and we can be reassured that no subterfuge is involved? That is my main request to the Minister. However, unless he does a lot better than he has so far to persuade me, I really feel that I cannot support the resolution.

Several hon.: Members rose—

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be possible for you to raise with the Speaker the possibility of tabling manuscript amendments if a message is received very late, at a time when most hon. Members are not available?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a hypothetical question and not one that I can answer now.

Mr. Keith Bradley (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What is the precedent for accepting a closure motion when the main motion has been debated for only 45 minutes and only about four more hon. Members—two of whom are privy councillors—wish to speak? As only four more hon. Members wish to speak, the debate could not have continued for much longer.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman would be aware, if he knows the Standing Orders, that closure is wholly a matter for the discretion of the occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Maclean: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course I accept that a closure motion is entirely at the discretion of the occupant of the Chair. I was asking whether it is possible for you to elaborate on the circumstances and precedent that have led you to conclude that it was a suitable instance in which to exercise your discretion after 45 minutes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows better than that. The rulings of the occupant of the Chair should not be questioned in that manner.

The House having divided: Ayes 257, Noes 21.

Division No. 352]
[7.54 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Barnes, Harry


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Barron, Kevin


Ainger, Nick
Bayley, Hugh


Alexander, Douglas
Begg, Miss Anne


Allen, Graham
Beth, Rt Hon A J


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bell, Marlin (Tatton)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Benton, Joe


Ashton, Joe
Best, Harold


Atkins, Charlotte
Betts, Clive


Banks, Tony
Blackman, Liz






Blizzard, Bob
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Grocott, Bruce


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Hancock, Mike


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Hanson, David


Buck, Ms Karen
Harvey, Nick


Burden, Richard
Healey, John


Burgon, Colin
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Burstow, Paul
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Hepburn, Stephen


Cable, Dr Vincent
Heppell, John


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Hesford, Stephen


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cann, Jamie
Hill, Keith


Caplin, Ivor
Hinchliffe, David


Casale, Roger
Hood, Jimmy


Caton, Martin
Hope, Phil


Cawsey, Ian
Hopkins, Kelvin


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Chidgey, David
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clapham, Michael
 Hurst, Alan


Clark, Dr Lynda
Hutton, John


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
lddon, Dr Brian


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Illsley, Eric


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Jamieson, David


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Clwyd, Ann
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Coaker, Vernon
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Ms Jenny


Coleman, Iain
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cooper, Yvette
 Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Keeble, Ms Sally


Corston, Jean
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Cousins, Jim
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Cox, Tom
Keetch, Paul


Cranston, Ross
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles


Crausby, David
(Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Khabra, Piara S


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Kidney, David


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Kilfoyle, Peter


Darvill, Keith
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Kingham, Ms Tess


Davidson, Ian
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Lepper, David


Denham, John
Leslie, Christopher


Dismore, Andrew
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Donohoe, Brian H
Livsey, Richard


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Edwards, Huw
Lock, David


Efford, Clive
Love, Andrew


Ennis, Jeff
McAvoy, Thomas


Flint, Caroline
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Flynn, Paul
Macdonald, Calum


Follett, Barbara
McDonnell, John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Mackinlay, Andrew


Foster, Don (Bath)
McNamara, Kevin


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McNulty, Tony


Galloway, George
MacShane, Denis 


Gardiner, Barry
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gerrard, Neil
McNulty, Tony


Gibson, Dr Ian
McWilliam, John


Gidley, Sandra
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mallaber, Judy


Godsiff, Roger
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Goggins, Paul
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Martlew, Eric


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Maxton,John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Michie, Bill (Shetld Heeley)





Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Morley, Elliot
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


(B'ham Yardley)
Soley, Clive


Mountford, Kali
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mudie, George
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mullin, Chris
Steinberg, Gerry


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Norris, Dan
Stunell, Andrew


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Olner, Bill
(Dewsbury)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pearson, Ian
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pickthall, Colin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Plaskitt, James
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pollard, Kerry
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Pond, Chris
Timms, Stephen


Pope, Greg
Tipping, Paddy


Pound, Stephen
Touhig, Don


Powell, Sir Raymond
Trickett, Jon


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Truswell, Paul


Primarolo, Dawn
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Prosser, Gwyn
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Rapson, Syd
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Tyler, Paul


Rendel, David
Vis, Dr Rudi


Rogers, Allan
Ward, Ms Claire


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Wareing, Robert N


Rooney, Terry
Welsh, Andrew


Rowlands, Ted
White, Brian


Ruane, Chris
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Ruddock, Joan
(Swansea W)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Winnick, David


Salter, Martin
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Sanders, Adrian
Woodward, Shaun


Sawford, Phil
Worthington, Tony


Sedgemore, Brian

Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Shaw, Jonathan
Wyatt, Derek


Sheerman, Barry



Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Mr. Mike Hall.




NOES


Bercow, John
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Randall, John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Ruffley, David


Fallon, Michael
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gale, Roger
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Grieve, Dominic
Swayne, Desmond


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Lidington, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Loughton, Tim
Mr. Douglas Hogg and


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Mr. Eric Forth.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly:—

The House divided:— Ayes 260, Noes 17.

Division No. 353]
[8.7 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Allen, Graham


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)


Ainger, Nick
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)


Alexander, Douglas
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hillary






Ashton, Joe
Flynn, Paul


Atkins, Charlotte
Follett, Barbara


Banks, Tony
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Barnes, Harry
Foster, Don (Bath)


Barron, Kevin
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bayley, Hugh
Galloway, George


Begg, Miss Anne
Gardiner, Barry


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Gerrard, Neil


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Benton, Joe
Gidley, Sandra


Best, Harold
Godman, Dr Norman A


Betts, Clive
Godsiff, Roger


Blackman, Liz
Goggins, Paul


Blizzard, Bob
Goldon, Mrs Llin


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Buck, Ms Karen
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Burden, Richard
Hancock, Mike


Burgon, Colin
Hanson, David


Burnett, John
Harvey, Nick


Burstow, Paul
Healey, John


Butler, Mrs Christine
Health, David (Somerton & Frome)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Hepburn, Stephen


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Heppell, John


Caplin, Ivor
Hesford, Stephen


Casale, Roger
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Caton, Martin
Hill, Keith


Cawsey, Ian
Hinchliffe, David


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hood, Jimmy


Chaytor, David
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Chidgey, David
Hope, Phil


Clapham, Michael
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clark, Dr Lynda
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hurst, Alan


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hutton, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Illsley, Eric


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Clwyd, Ann
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Coaker, Vernon
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Coffey, Ms Ann
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Coleman, Iain
Jones, Ms Jenny


Colman, Tony
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cooper, Yvette
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Keeble, Ms Sally


Corston, Jean
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Cousins, Jim
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Cox, Tom
Keetch, Paul


Cranston, Ross
Kemp, Fraser


Crausby, David
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
(Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Khabra, Piara S


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Kidney, David


Darvill, Keith
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Kingham, Ms Tess


Davidson, Ian
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Lepper, David


Denham, John
Leslie, Christopher


Dismore, Andrew
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Donohoe, Brian H
Livsey, Richard


Dowd, Jim
Lloud, Tony (Manchester C)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Lock, David


Edwards, Huw
Love, Andrew


Efford, Clive
McAvoy, Thomas


Ennis, Jeff
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Flint, Caroline
Macdonald, Calum





McDonnell, John
Salter, Martin


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sanders, Adrian


McNamara, Kevin
Sawford, Phil


McNulty, Tony
Sedgemore, Brian


Mactaggart, Fiona
Shaw, Jonathan


Mc Walter, Tony
Singh, Marsha


McWilliam, John
Skinner, Dennis


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Maxton, John
Soley, Clive


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Spellar, John


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Moffatt, Laura
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Steinberg, Gerry


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Morley, Elliot
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle
Stuart, Ms Gisela


(B'ham Yardley)
Stunell, Andrew


Mountford, Kali
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mudie, George
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Mullin, Chris
(Dewsbury)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Temple-Morris, Peter


Norris, Dan
Thomas, simon (Ceredigion)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Timms, Stephen


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Tipping, Paddy


Olner, Bill
Touhig, Don


Palmer, Dr Nick
Trickett, Jon



Pearson, Ian
Truswell, Paul


Pickthall, Colin
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Plaskitt, James
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pollard, Kerry
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pond, Chris
Tyler, Paul


Pope, Greg
Vis, Dr Rudi


Pound, Stephen
Ward, Ms Claire


Powell, Sir Raymond
Wareing, Robert N


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Welsh, Andrew


Primarolo, Dawn
White, Brian


Prosser, Gwyn
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Rapson, Syd
(Swansea W)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rendel, David
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)



Rogers, Allan
Winnick, David


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Rooney, Terry
Woodward, Shaun


Rowlands, Ted

Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Ruane, Chris
Wyatt, Derek


Ruddock, Joan



Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Ryan, Ms Joan
Mr. David Jamieson.




NOES


Bercow, John
Mc Loughlin, Patrick


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Randall, John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Day, Stephen
Swayne, Desmond


Grieve, Dominic
Taylor, John M Solihull)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lidington, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Gerald Howarth and


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Mr. Eric Forth.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That, at this day's sitting and the sittings on Thursday 23rd and Monday 27th November, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords shall be received.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

Orders of the Day — Coal Operating Aid Scheme

The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I beg to move,

That this House authorises the Secretary of State to pay, or undertake to pay, by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, and in respect of coal mining qualifying for aid under the UK Coal Operating Aid Scheme, sums exceeding £10 million for each of Hatfield Coal Company Ltd, Mining (Scotland) Limited, and RJB Mining plc.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): It is incumbent on me to remind the House that Mr. Speaker has imposed a time limit of 10 minutes on speeches by Back Benchers.

Mrs. Liddell: The Government also anticipate paying sums of less than £10 million to a number of other applicants for aid.
On 17 April, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a statement to the House on energy policy, in which he announced the intention to lift the stricter gas consents policy, the forthcoming introduction of new electricity trading arrangements and plans to provide temporary aid to the coal industry to enable it to overcome short-term difficulties in the period of transition.
In July, I announced that the Government had formally applied to the European Commission for its approval of the UK coal operating aid scheme. The notification followed extensive consultation with coal producers and purchasers to ensure that the scheme we proposed met the Government's objectives as spelt out by my right hon. Friend on 17 April, and that it complied with European regulations.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention the promise made in May by the Prime Minister in response to my question to him£that aid from the coal operating scheme could be used for cleaner coal technology? Will my right hon. Friend include such technology in her programme, so that we can have some assurances about the continuation of mining?

Mrs. Liddell: As I progress through my opening remarks, my hon. Friend will learn that our ability to pay aid is constrained by fairly concrete rules and that cleaner coal technology is not included. However, my Department funds research into cleaner coal technology and is anxious to see the maximum uptake of schemes that promote it.
Last week, we were pleased to announce that the European Commission had approved the coal operating aid scheme.
Hon. Members are aware that the history of the coal industry has not been a happy one. From 1985 to the early 1990s, the coal industry suffered serious decline, with employment falling from 270,000 people to fewer than 20,000. That had a devastating impact on workers, their families and the communities in which they lived. The Government put in place a major regeneration programme for the coalfield areas. In December 1998, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced that, over three years, about £354 million would be invested in

coalfield regeneration. That was in addition to the amount of more than £1 billion devoted each year to the regeneration of local authority areas containing coalfields.
However, the recent history of the coal industry is by no means all gloom. The industry has made great strides in improving efficiency and raising productivity. Between 1990 and 1998, output per head increased by an average of 33 per cent. a year—more than for any other energy industry, and far more than the 5 per cent. average for industry as a whole.
The Government's general policy remains that it is for the coal industry to find its own place in a competitive energy market, and it is in a very good position to do so. Our coal industry is by far the most efficient in Europe. Germany, which has the largest coal industry in the EC, produces about 20 per cent. more coal than we do, but with a labour force that is nearly 10 times greater. The German industry benefits from massive Government subsidies; the French and Spanish coal industries are also subsidised.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I have a question on precisely that point. We understand that the subsidy to other coal industries in the EU is more than £3 billion; that forces our coal industry, which is so efficient, to be uncompetitive. What have the Government done to refer that unfair subsidy to Germany, France and other countries, so that the British industry can survive?

Mrs. Liddell: One of the reasons why we are introducing the motion is to address that unfairness to the UK coal industry. Indeed, we have raised the unfair subsidies with the Commission. As I shall point out, we are opposed to the continuation of the EU coal subsidy beyond the end of July 2002, when the European coal and steel community treaty comes to an end.

Several hon.: Members rose—

Mrs. Liddell: I shall not take many interventions, as several hon. Members want to speak. As a courtesy to them, I shall try to complete my remarks as quickly as possible.
The Government believe that the UK coal industry has a long-term, viable future, but we recognise that it faces exceptional short-term difficulties at present. Coal prices have been very low; the stricter gas consents policy has been lifted; and the new electricity trading arrangements are due to be implemented. We thus propose to pay aid temporarily, to enable the industry to overcome its temporary difficulties in the transitional period following the lifting of the stricter gas consents policy.
As the House is aware, the time scale for full implementation of NETA is likely to be spring 2001. Work on preparing the market is far advanced. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced last week, he is satisfied that the programme of reforms in the 1998 White Paper is substantially complete; he has therefore lifted the stricter gas consents policy. Thus it remains true that the coal industry needs to adapt to those changes in the market, even though the timing is not quite as the industry anticipated in the spring.
There has been a significant recovery in coal prices since April, although it is not clear how long that trend can be sustained. However, owing to the advance nature


of coal contracting, much of the current UK coal production will be sold under contracts whose terms were drawn up some time ago. Many coal producers will thus not benefit from any upturn in coal prices for some time to come, so despite the significant changes that have taken place in the coal market, the subsidy scheme is still necessary.
The scheme is designed to allow those elements of the industry with a viable future without aid to overcome short-term market problems; to prevent a sudden and sharp decline in the size of the coal industry; and to ensure that mines with a long-term future do not close because of short-term problems.
It may assist hon. Members if I explain the working of the scheme. Aid may be paid to producers of coal who meet all the criteria laid down in the formal notification to the Commission, as set out in the UK coal operating scheme dated 26 July 2000. Among the criteria are that sales of coal to UK customers must genuinely need help to meet losses; that subsidy must not cause a price that would undercut third-country coal of equivalent quality; that significant progress towards degression of both production cost and operating aid must be demonstrated; and that there must be a realistic prospect of medium-term viability once the aid scheme finishes.
The aid will be considered in three tranches covering the period from 17 April 2000 to 23 July 2002: tranche 1 will cover this year from 17 April; tranche 2 will cover the whole of next year; and tranche 3 will cover 2002 until 23 July. Payments will be subject to the production unit continuing to meet the cost improvement plans agreed. At the end of each tranche period there will be a reconciliation process, to ensure that units receive what they are entitled to, but not more.
The scheme will assist only those parts of the industry with a viable future once the subsidy scheme has ended.

Mr. Joe Ashton: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Liddell: Will my hon. Friend allow me to proceed? I am anxious that Back Benchers should have an opportunity to contribute.
I reiterate that this is a temporary measure for temporary difficulties and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that it will end in July 2002. In order to obtain aid, a production unit will have to demonstrate a viable plan not only up to the end of the subsidy scheme in July 2002, but for the period beyond 2002 until at least mid-2004. This is not an attempt to prop up a lame-duck industry. Through this measure, we are ensuring the long-term future of competitive mines.
The scheme will treat all mines in a fair and non-discriminatory way. We will ensure that subsidies paid will not cause the delivered price to undercut third-country coal of equivalent quality. That means that the subsidy cannot be used to undermine the competitiveness of non-subsidised firms. The Government are appointing a specialist panel, the import parity price panel, to ensure that that criterion is satisfied, so there is no question of mines that do not receive subsidy suffering because aid is paid to other mines.
Any mine that satisfies the criteria will be eligible for aid. This is not just for the big players. No mine is too small to qualify. Opencast and deep mines can apply. The scheme is not discriminatory.
The scheme as notified to the European Commission had an estimated total cost of £110 million, although the final amount paid will depend on what applications are received, the price of coal and the progress made in decreasing costs. The level of subsidy paid to individual production units will be designed to cover the losses incurred by the production of coal in the subsidy period. It will not cause prices unfairly to undercut those of non-subsidised firms, and no undertaking will receive more than £75 million over the entire lifetime of the subsidy scheme.
I assure the House that the funds will not be wasted. Funds will be available only to cover losses made in the production of qualifying coal. We have employed expert consultants IMC Consulting to help us to ensure that costs identified are appropriate, reasonable and calculated in accordance with the scheme. They will also advise as to whether the cost reduction plans submitted are realistic, and whether the units are viable beyond the operation of the scheme. What is more, the reconciliation process at the end of each subsidy period will ensure that if actual costs and receipts differ from those that were estimated, balancing payments or repayments will be made. Money will not be wasted.
We have already received several applications for aid under the first tranche, and further applications will be considered, as long as they are received by the end of this year. Once we are satisfied that the applications satisfy the scheme's criteria—and of course we shall have the advice of our mining consultants and the import parity price panel to help us make that assessment—we shall submit them to the European Commission. We have already done so for Longannet. The Commission then initially has three months to approve the aid, although we are very hopeful of much swifter responses.
This aid scheme will ensure the long-term future of a profitable mining industry in the United Kingdom. The criteria for aid are such that the money will not be wasted, competition will not be distorted, and unnecessary closures will be avoided. Yes, £110 million is a considerable sum, but I, for one, am in no doubt that this aid is well worth paying to secure the long-term—

Mr. Ashton: May I say, as a Member who has the headquarters of Budge in his constituency—and two coal mines, which is very unusual these days—that there will be a tremendous vote of thanks to my right hon. Friend for what she has done and the way in which the Government have rescued the industry? However, will she answer a question arising from what she has said? If Budge sold the industry, as has been mooted in the past, would these subsidies still be available, and would they be taken into account and influence the sale price? What would the outcome be?

Mrs. Liddell: The issue is the long-term profitability of the unit. The assessment is not based on the ownership of the unit; it is based on the unit's potential to become profitable at the end of the subsidy period. Thus, the issue is not ownership, but the pit's production potential.
The aid scheme is a very useful way forward for us. It will secure the long-term future of Britain's coal industry, and I am sure that it will be welcomed in the many mining communities in this country.

Mr. Nick Gibb: I declare an interest in the Register£in particular, a visit to Denmark this summer to examine windmills, courtesy of National Wind Power, a subsidy of Innogy.
I listened with interest to the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, and I noted especially the passionate way in which she talks about coal mines and mining communities. She undoubtedly speaks on the subject with great conviction. The problem is that she cannot translate that sincerity into practical policies that actually help.
The current clutch of Department of Trade and Industry Ministers devote much time and energy to crafting the right phrase, but there is a chasm between the words used and the policies delivered. They talk of competition and productivity while piling on to business regulations that are destroying British productivity, which grew by just 1.4 per cent. a year over the last three years compared with 2.4 per cent. under the previous Government and 2.7 per cent. in the United States.
The motion gives the Government authority to spend £110 million subsidising the United Kingdom coal industry when the German, French and Spanish spend some £3,500 million a year in illegal subsidies to their coal industries£industries that are up to five times less efficient than the British coal industry.
An effective set of Ministers, who were able to deliver genuine help for the British coal industry, would be working harder and being smarter and tougher in challenging those European subsidies. The lack of ministerial focus on that matter was exemplified in a European Standing Committee, which sat earlier this year, on state aid to the coal industry. That Committee examined a Commission report on state aid. The EU, as the Minister said, permits operating aid only on condition that progress is made towards the economic viability of a particular pit or unit. However, the Commission report, published in September 1999, was damning in its verdict on the German, French and Spanish coal industries. It said:
With the exception of a certain potential in the United Kingdom, the possibility of a Community coal industry which can compete commercially on the international markets can be definitively ruled out… While state aid can offer an adequate means of coping with economic crises, the state aid given to coal production in the EU has not been capable of providing an answer in economic terms to the structural crisis facing the European coal industry…The strategy of lowering production costs through the use of more advanced technology has proved ineffective.
In other words, the European Commission is saying that the key condition for operating aid to the European coal industry, with the exception of that in the UK, cannot be fulfilled and thus, unless the aid is closure aid, it is illegal. That is a pretty hard-hitting Commission report, which should have given DTI Ministers ample ammunition to boost any campaign against the £3.5 billion annual subsidies to the European coal industry that are so damaging to the UK coal industry.
However, the Government's policy changed by not one degree as a result of that report. The subsidies in Europe continue, and the Government, instead of stopping £3.5 billion of subsidies in Europe, are giving £110 million of subsidies to the UK coal industry as though one matched the other. It is a case of all mouth and no action.
In December 1997, the Minister's predecessor as energy Minister, now Minister of State at the Foreign Office, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), told the Select Committee on Trade and Industry that the DTI is "committed" to
taking action to block the subsidies to German and Spanish coal producers that create barriers to the sale of UK coal
in the EU. He said that he wanted to "prise open" a market for British coal in Germany. How is that going? Has the present Minister managed to prise open that market? It is clear from her predecessor's statement that the DTI policy back in 1997—no doubt inherited from the previous Government—was one of serious engagement with the EU on subsidies. Only a change of policy—the determination to be seen as good Europeans—has led to punches being pulled. In other words, new Labour policies are inflicting on the coal industry wounds that the motion before us does little more than apply an Elastoplast to.
One of the worst Labour self-inflicted wounds to the coal industry has come from the Deputy Prime Minister, who raised Britain's CO2 emission reduction target to 20 per cent. of recorded 1990 levels, significantly beyond what was required to fulfil our international obligations. As the Trade and Industry Committee report on the coal industry published in March 1998 said,
the Kyoto greenhouse gas emission targets, together with the UK's 1997 commitment to a 20% cut in 1990 levels of CO2 by 2010…together represent a more dramatic increase in environmental pressure on coal than anything foreseen in 1993, and on a far tighter time scale.
On top of that, Magnox power stations are being decommissioned and they represent 8 per cent. of our electricity production. That will add further pressure on the CO2 emission targets and the coal industry. Again, new Labour is inflicting pressure, and the problem cannot be resolved by a £110 million annual payment that expires in 2002.
The announcement of the United Kingdom coal operating aid scheme that was made by the Secretary of State in April this year was a quid pro quo for his decision to lift the stricter consents policy—the gas moratorium. Further details of the scheme were announced to certain newspapers at the same time as consents for a number of new gas-fired stations were announced. It all seems very politically charged.
The gas moratorium was a political gesture to Members representing coal mining areas. No one believed the ex post facto justification set out in the 1998 energy White Paper that artificially high electricity prices were somehow encouraging new build gas-fired stations at the expense of coal. No one was going to invest hundreds of millions of pounds on the basis of temporarily higher prices in the full knowledge that reforms to the electricity pool were imminent. The Government have all but admitted that by severing the link between the end of the gas moratorium and the beginning of the new electricity trading arrangements, which have been put back to March next year at the earliest.
The moratorium has done enormous damage to British industry in the three years of its existence. Electricity prices are higher than they would otherwise have been, with knock-on effects on the competitiveness of energy-intensive industries. Thousands of jobs have been lost in those areas seeking to build the new gas-fired plant and


millions of tonnes of additional CO2, have been, and will continue to be, pumped into the atmosphere as a consequence. In 1998, Ralph Hodge, the chairman of Enron Europe, said about the gas moratorium:
Consumers, the economy and the environment will be the losers, with higher-than-needed electricity costs, significant job losses and much higher emissions of greenhouse gases.
That is the downside of the policy, but what is the upside effect? The Select Committee was clear in its conclusions as to the effect of the gas moratorium in helping the coal industry. The Labour-dominated Committee said:
We do not believe that this moratorium on section 36 … consents for new power stations will assist the coal industry in the short run … we look to the Government to ensure that the moratorium is lifted as soon as possible.
In other words, it is another disaster of a policy—downsides for industry and the environment, but no upside for the coal industry.
That brings me to the final example of the all mouth and no delivery policy for coal that the motion is meant to remedy. I refer to the promotion of clean coal technology, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). When the right hon. Lady's predecessor was an Opposition spokesman in 1996 he said that Labour would "seriously consider" offering clean coal power part of the £400 million existing subsidy for renewable energy. I wonder how that serious consideration is progressing, or was it just yet another broken Labour promise?
Page 111 of the Government's trade and industry expenditure plans refers to the Government's new policy on cleaner coal technology. It states:
As well as contributing to a £60 million portfolio of research and development projects over the next few years, the Government will initiate a series of focused trade missions and seminars.
That is all very useful—I am sure. However, when that —60 million is scrutinised in a little more detail in the Department of Trade and Industry energy paper 67, it is revealed to be £12 million over three years and is
forecast to generate projects worth at least £60 million.
So the big proportion of £400 million promised in 1996 boiled down to £4 million once the Labour party took power. A Government serious about helping the future of the coal industry in these environmentally conscious days would take clean coal technology more seriously than that.
I have several questions about the motion, which does not specify how much will be paid to the three companies listed in it. I understand that further details need to be worked out, but will the Minister confirm one or two points? Longannet has already been submitted to the European Union, but will she say how much that pit will receive? Will she confirm that Hatfield, Selby, Blenkisopp, Harworth, Maltby, Rossington and Welbeck, the other pits listed on the DTI website, will be submitted to the EU? What steps will the EU undertake and what further permissions will be required?
We shall not oppose the aid of £110 million, but it is the only positive policy that the Government have had for coal since they came to office. However that aid is tiny compared with the negatives that they have delivered for coal in the same period. There have been no concrete achievements in tackling the £3.5 billion of subsidy in Europe, but there have been an ambitious CO2 emissions target and an almost non-existent commitment to clean

coal technologies. Labour Members have been sufficiently spun by Ministers to regard the subsidy as manna from heaven. It is not, and I trust that they will not regard it as such.

Mr. Eric Clarke: I declare an interest: I am a paid adviser to Mining (Scotland) Ltd.
I am an ex-trade union official and was a miner for 26 years, so I realise that the most important aspect of an extractive industry is the development of new face lines. Investment in coal mining is a long-term investment, and the whole industry—not just the industry in Scotland—thanks the Government for this help.
Development must take place alongside production to achieve continuity of work. Major developments are occasionally necessary and that means that millions of pounds must be spent. For example, in Scotland, the Kincardine area of the Longannet complex cost millions of pounds to develop.
We need finance for deep mining. Opencast mining in Scotland helps to subsidise some deep-mining activities and it also guarantees production and quality to the power stations. Scottish coal is low sulphur and it is blended with deep-mined coal from England to keep deep mines open and to make that coal acceptable to the generators.
We are debating not a hole in the ground, but a sophisticated and highly developed industry. It is the pride of the world and investment has been made in the coal industry and the manufacture of mining machinery. One problem in Scotland and elsewhere is faulting in the strata—in other words, faults underground. The forecasting of those faults is important. New sophisticated equipment can make three-dimensional forecasts and determine exactly where they lie. It is possible to design the layout of pits to miss the faults, and the dry-aways and production face lines will be better planned. That is all needed, but very expensive. It adds to overheads, but guarantees success.
The coal industry can stand on its own. Savings in the balance of payments for other fuels that take its place are second to none. Every time fuel—oil, gas or anything else—is bought on the international market, it must be paid for by American dollars, although it does not necessarily come from that country. Burning coal from indigenous mines saves this country millions of dollars. Oil prices have quadrupled, gas prices have increased by 9p a therm and even the cost of imported coal has increased—as we forecast—so our coal is a good investment. More than that—I do not want to make a plea—it is giving people employment. The spin-off is phenomenal. For every coal miner employed, 10 or more people are employed in ancillary industries.
The Government are to be congratulated. It gives a crow in the throat, as they say in Scotland, to hear the Conservatives give advice about the coal industry. I spent most of my life in the industry—26 years underground and 12 years as a union official. I do not need to be told what happened to the coal industry in Scotland because it was Mrs. Thatcher and her cohorts who were responsible, and they acted not for economic reasons, but out of political spite. Conservative Members may shake their heads, but it is a fact. I must thank the Government for their help. I hope that it is a start because there is a need for long-term investment. That goes for the industry both south and north of the border.

Dr. Vincent Cable: I shall try to heed the Minister's suggestion that we speak briefly so that hon. Members who represent coal mining constituencies have plenty of opportunity to speak. Indeed, the deputy leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is one of them. Twickenham is far removed from the coal mining industry—almost as far as Bognor Regis—but I have an interest because this subject is about environmental policy as well as about coal mining.
In the Government's report on climate change, published a few days ago, I was struck by the extent to which the coal mining industry has carried the burden of CO2 emission reductions. Ministers of this Government and the previous Government have gone around the world saying that Britain has made an enormous contribution to reducing CO2 emissions, but the small print in the report makes it clear that the sacrifice has been made almost entirely by one industry.
Between 1990 and 1998, the shift to gas from coal reduced carbon emissions by 13 million tonnes compared with a reduction of 2 million tonnes of carbon achieved through the petrol duty escalator, protests against which almost brought the country to a halt. That 13 million tonnes needs to be set in the context of the total net reductions in this country, which were, as far as I can deduce from the figures, about 13.5 million tonnes. Therefore, one relatively small industry has carried almost the whole burden of adjustment in an important environmental shift. In that context, it is only reasonable to expect some of the pain caused by that adjustment to be cushioned.
The Government's intervention is not propping up a declining industry—I would not support it if it were—but easing a transition within a relatively small remaining part of an industry that has taken an enormous amount of pain so that Britain as a whole can claim substantial environmental improvements in the global context that is discussed in The Hague.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) said that he saw support for the coal mining industry as a quid pro quo for the liberalisation of permission for gas-fuelled power stations. I am sure that that is right, but it is an entirely reasonable quid pro quo. It seems right that the coal industry should get some relief from the pain of adjustment, but equally right that the gas permissions should be liberalised. There are powerful reasons why that should happen. Every unit of energy emits 40 per cent. less carbon-using gas and there are the additional benefits of using combined-cycle technology, which reduces carbon emissions even further. There is less sulphur, fewer particulates and additional advantages of being able to build gas-powered plants near the consumer without investment in the transmission system. Such plants can be built much more quickly. We all know the good reasons why gas must develop. So, the policy is a quid pro quo, but an entirely reasonable one in which there is an element of balance.
In the long term, we face a challenge that neither coal nor gas can answer. The problem will arise around 2005—the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton mentioned it—when the older atomic power stations, which at present make a major contribution to the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, will have to be

phased out. If they are replaced by gas-powered plants, emissions for every unit of energy will increase by about 60 per cent., and if by coal-powered ones, by about 80 per cent.—unless new technology is developed.
So, neither fuel represents an answer to the problem. That is why regarding gas as a panacea is just as dangerous as seeing it as some unacceptable form of fuel. That is why we on the Liberal Democrat Benches have tried to tie the Government to much stronger commitments to renewable energy in 2010. Indeed, it is why we tabled amendments to the Utilities Bill to that effect.
However, in the narrower context of the motion, and given the pressures that the coal mining industry has had to bear, the proposal is entirely reasonable, and we shall support it.

Mr. Denis Murphy: I also extend my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe on the work and effort that she and her Department have put in to ensure that this Government aid package has been given the green light by the European Union, and that it has been brought to the House for approval so quickly.
There should be no doubt in anyone's mind, particularly in this House, that if the aid package had not been available, the bulk of Britain's deep-mined industry would now be closed. That would not only have been a tragedy for the United Kingdom, but a great loss to Europe. Given the short-term problems that the industry faces, and hence the need for such aid, Britain's mining operations are much more efficient and productive than anything else Europe has to offer. I hope to demonstrate in the next few minutes how short-term aid could benefit the long-term energy needs of our nation.
Our first aim must be to retain a balanced energy portfolio—a sensible share of the generating market for gas, nuclear and coal. The events surrounding the fuel crisis of the past few months are a timely reminder and a warning that we close any sector of our home energy production at our peril. The 300 per cent. rise in the cost of oil has sent shock waves around the world, with demonstrations from Strasbourg to Sydney, yet over the past 15 years we in the UK have allowed our greatest source of energy—coal—to go into free-fall and to decline desperately.
In some traditional mining areas, we have lost completely a skills base that took generations to build. In many cases, sadly, it has been replaced by desperate social and economic problems. We now have one colliery, Ellington, left in what was the great northern coalfield. I spent nearly 30 years of my working life there and I know many of the men who still work there as friends and as comrades.
I am delighted, therefore, that as a result of the aid package Ellington colliery has been offered a lifeline by RJB Mining, protecting the jobs of several hundred miners who live in an area where unemployment is still a blight and the rate of it has consistently remained at twice the national average for far too many years. I welcome the measures taken by the Government to address the very real problems faced by former coalfield areas, with a variety of initiatives from health to education. I intend to continue my pressure on RJB Mining to extend the life of


Ellington beyond the four years already agreed, in order to exploit the huge reserves of coal that lie under the North sea.
I am sure that one influential factor in the argument will be access to markets. In order to ensure our balanced energy portfolio, we desperately need a new generation of clean coal-fired power stations to replace the ageing ones that are presently in use. These replacement stations are the only hope of a real long-term future for Britain's mining industry.
We are fortunate in the north-east of England that not only do we have an abundance of energy, but we are rich in ideas. The first offshore wind farm in the United Kingdom will shortly be producing electricity just off the coast of my constituency. Newcastle university is a world leader in photovoltaics—the science of turning light into power. The earth balance project in my constituency not only grows and produces organic food, but produces electricity from biomass and wind power.
The Wansbeck Energy Company is well advanced with the Wansbeck energy project, a partnership between local authorities and the companies Merz and McClellan, and Kennedy and Donkin—two of the most respected names in the field of energy and power. The company intends to build a commercial clean coal-fired power station of approximately 400 MW with the gasification of coal in a combined cycle process.
Given the demands of Kyoto, environmental issues are at the forefront of the developers proposals. There is confidence that the proposed process will offer significant improvements over existing coal-fired power stations, and that in terms of emissions it will compare favourably with modern gas-fired combined cycle gas turbines.
Contaminated mine water from abandoned coal mines is a particular problem in many regions of the United Kingdom, particularly in our area. A unique and ingenious approach to resolving the problem involves using the contaminated mine water in the gasification process in that power station. The plant uses significant quantities of water, which needs to be treated to extremely high standards. The opportunity exists, therefore, to use water from former coal mines rather than town water, reducing the threat to water courses and local rivers, and disposing of contaminated water in a responsible way.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to visit my constituency and see at first-hand our proposals, or, if that is not possible, at the very least to meet a delegation from the constituency in London. At present we have the skills base to build and operate the plant, for recently, as my right hon. Friend knows, National Power announced the closure of what was then the UK's oldest power station, Blyth A and B. The work force therefore still exists.
In conclusion, the aid package has secured thousands of mining jobs and protected many more thousands of jobs in the equipment manufacturing sector, which secures exports worth more than £200 million a year. Although the aid secures jobs for the short term, the mining industry may need long-term help. I urge the Government to support schemes such as I have outlined. The saying, "Think globally, act locally" has never been more apt, especially as we witness what could be the first major climate change attributed to global warming.
Although in my view it is not possible to end our use of fossil fuels in heavily developed industrialised nations, we can certainly improve the efficiency and dramatically

improve the emissions from a new generation of clean coal-fired power stations. I urge the Government to support the development of a clean energy centre in my constituency, where we can generate electricity, manufacture wind turbines and light cells, and develop new technologies to increase the contribution that needs to be made by renewables. We can do that side by side with the fuel that has served the nation well for generations: coal.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Ellington colliery is in my constituency, and it employs quite a number of miners in the constituency and a significant number in the constituencies of the hon. Members for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) and for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell). All of us who represent those constituencies have been involved in the campaign to secure the operating subsidy. We are glad to see it brought before the House.
The link between Ellington and the subsidy is rather complex. It rests upon a pledge made by Richard Budge that if an operating subsidy was available to the industry and to the significant part of it that his company owns and operates, the colliery would remain in operation until 2004. We are having a curious discussion because all of us who represent the area are welcoming the subsidy on the basis that Richard Budge's pledge will be honoured. I have no reason to believe that it will not be, but the importance of the pledge must be put on record.
It was slightly more than a year ago that the closure announcement was made. It was not the first, because Ellington colliery was closed by British Coal in nationalised days and reopened by Budge. About a year ago a closure announcement was made, and I and others discussed the matter with the Minister, who was courteous in listening to us. However, the initial response of Ministers was that it would be impossible to get a legally watertight scheme that would go through the European Commission.
It took much discussion, considerable pressure and a lot of thinking—we are all grateful that the thinking took place—to take the Government to the point where they said that there was a basis on which there could be an operating subsidy. Members from other coalfield areas played a large part in helping to secure that outcome. I am grateful for the help that Ellington had from other areas in that respect. Of course, other areas will benefit significantly from the operating subsidy.
The story has been further complicated by the fact that in the meantime there have been all sorts of bids for RJB Mining and its assets. We have the extraordinary Mr. De Stefano, who had suspicious links with Milosevic, and who was taking a rather worrying interest in RJB Mining. Thank goodness that fell through. I believe that he was under arrest at one point as a result of charges being pursued by the British. In fact, he was arrested in Italy. There was the slightly less disreputable but still worrying Renco bid, which again raised anxieties about the fate of Ellington.
We have the operating subsidy in place and RJB Mining appearing to be continuing as a British-based company. That is a relief to a work force which, having achieved wonders in productivity, have been put through the mill in terms of anxiety about the future of their jobs


and their industry. If the jobs of Ellington miners are taken out of the area, £10 million a year will be taken out of the area's economy. Given all the local regeneration measures of which we can think, it is extremely difficult to come up with something that would build up to that level, even over a reasonable period, let alone in the short term. The announcement of the subsidy is accompanied by a great sense of relief, given that it has been cleared at European level and is going ahead.
The Budge pledge runs to 2004, but what will happen after that? I share the view that there are potential reserves that could be accessed from Ellington colliery, the quality of which we do not entirely know. Budge's first experience in getting beyond the Causey Park dyke and operating from that part of the pit was not encouraging because of the sulphur level and the state of the coal found there. There may be significant reserves further on. I want to see some real development work taking place between now and 2004 in an attempt to give the pit a future thereafter.
The pit is associated with Alcan power station and smelter, which is next door to it. There has been an increase in employment recently at Alcan, and that is great news for the area. We want to see the future of that industry secure as well. However, we must take action to deal with the job losses that have already happened. At Ellington alone, the work force are a fraction of what they used to be. There were 2,000 men there at one time, as well as the thousands of men in other pits within the Northumberland coalfield.
We must deal with the general deprivation, which all the figures and indices show, of the former Northumberland coalfield, and we must prepare for the day when the Ellington pit is no more. Even if my ambitions and hopes, and those of other Members, for the future development of the pit are fulfilled, it must be understood that no pit lasts for ever. The history of the coal mining industry is one of considerable difficulty in replacing jobs lost. Sometimes they have been replaced, but mining villages were not always built in convenient places for other industries.
However, there has been success in some communities. It is time for us to see some success in Northumberland where, as for much of the northern region, we still fall way behind all the favourable and positive indices that Governments like to claim as marks of success. Work must therefore continue on regeneration in the area. Road and rail transport links, for example, could help the area, new industries must be brought into the area, small businesses must be strengthened, and there must be public investment in the infrastructure. The scheme is good news for us, but it must not deter us from the work that needs to be done and which the Government, in particular, must undertake to give the area a future.
I have a happy footnote on the Ellington colliery band, of which I am president. It has been told that it will get some subsidy from RJB Mining. I am rather pleased about that, as the band does a great job in the community, not least in attracting young people, of whom there are a considerable number in its junior band. The band has a happy link with the colliery, and we look forward to the colliery succeeding in future.

Ms Rachel Squire: May I say that it is good to be in the Chamber to hear good news for the coal mining industry after 18 years of devastation under the previous Government.
Access to Longannet mine is in my constituency and, as the local Member of Parliament, I pay tribute to everyone who has worked hard on the Mining (Scotland) Ltd. application to the coal aid scheme to try to achieve a future for the only deep mine left in Scotland. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friends the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland, as well as to the late First Minister, Donald Dewar, who, tragically, is no longer with us. He did all that he could to help to give Longannet a future. I also pay tribute to Mining (Scotland) Ltd.—especially its chairman, Professor Ross Harper—Scottish Power, Scottish Enterprise, Fife council and my UK and Scottish parliamentary colleagues who have given consistent support.
I pay special tribute to the National Union of Mineworkers (Scotland) and the miners at Longannet, who refused to give up and be defeated. They have stuck there, determined to give that mine a future. The aid scheme will help to provide a future to the 450 or so miners who remain at Longannet and, hopefully, it will create new jobs and possibly some apprenticeships.
The miners and Mining (Scotland) Ltd. fully appreciate the challenges ahead. They must grasp this opportunity to develop an up-to-date, modern and competitive mine, as there will be no second chance. We all believe that Longannet is a mine with a future, as there is 20 years' worth of coal waiting to be extracted and a customer committed to buying that coal, namely, Scottish Power. Detailed seismic surveys have shown that there is coal ready for extraction; they will help the mining company to avoid the geological faults that have led to so many difficulties in recent months.
Longannet is a financially and economically viable mine. Picking up on points made earlier, may I point out that it is an environmentally friendly mine that produces the lowest sulphur coal in the United Kingdom. That coal is transported underground by conveyor belt directly to Longannet power station, which has received heavy investment from Scottish Power to make it environmentally friendly through gas re-burn and flue gas desulphurisation.
Knowing how keen my colleagues are to speak, I shall end by saying that I look forward to hearing from my right hon. Friend the Minister about when we can expect the cheque to arrive. I express my full support and that of the communities of Dunfermline and west Fife, other parts of Scotland and areas across the UK, for the continuation of our deep-mining industry and the motion on the coal operating aid scheme.

Mr. Jon Trickett: Those of my constituents who work in the Selby pits, the Prince of Wales and Kellingley, their families and communities, welcome today's announcement. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister. Neither I nor anyone in the industry underestimates how complicated it was to unpick the Tory legacy. My right hon. Friend's work and determination are to be applauded. Everyone in the communities that I represent recognises that she is a true friend of the industry.
It is good to see the Government's commitment to the industry being echoed in the private sector. Ferrybridge power station, which takes coal from the local collieries, is to benefit from £100 million worth of new plant for desulphurising coal, which clearly shows the private sector's long-term commitment to coal from the Yorkshire pits. That is welcome, although it remains for the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to determine the matter.
I listened with incredulity to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb). He cries crocodile tears for the industry that his party sought to destroy. Not only did the Conservative Government close the vast bulk of the pits, decimating the mining industry with no sense of compassion or commitment to the nation's interests in terms of its energy needs, but they created the mad dash for gas. The electricity pool was rigged so that we built gas power stations, to the detriment of coal. Yet they knew then that indigenous supplies of gas were limited. They probably have fewer than 12 years to go, and we shall then have to import gas from the former Soviet bloc and the middle east, regions which are politically and geologically unstable.
The Tories pursued a foolish nuclear energy policy. The nuclear power industry is now costing billions to decommission and its legacy will last for generations. The Tories also failed to pursue the issue of the interconnector, a technical device by which the French can pump energy into Britain, with no reciprocal arrangement by which energy produced with British coal can be pumped back to the continent. The Tories also failed to prevent the subsidies given elsewhere in the EU—£3.5 billion a year in subsidies for French, German and Spanish coal, which is three times more expensive to produce than British coal.
All this shows the extent to which the Tories were motivated by a sense of vindictiveness towards the mining communities, particularly towards the National Union of Mineworkers. We all know that their real target was the destruction of the union.
I do not know whether you, Madam Deputy Speaker, read the Mirror, but I am sure that many others do. That august newspaper has revealed a secret plot among the Tories. It states:
The Tories are secretly plotting to close Britain's remaining coal mines … they want subsidies to coal-fired power stations axed in a plan which would spell disaster for the 17 remaining deep mines
and the thousands of men who work there. 
The report continues:
The plan was revealed in a secret Tory briefing paper—
produced over the road in Smith square—
which condemns the coal industry as "dirty" and "inefficient"
despite all the investment that has been made.
The Tories are determined to close the rest of the pits, despite the fact that British coal is more efficient than that of any other country—one third of the cost of German or French coal. Now that the pool has been disaggregated, the cheapest source of energy is coal, even within the United Kingdom. Those facts, more than anything, demonstrate the political rather than economic determinants of Tory policy.
The aid that we hope will be agreed this evening is short term and transitional. We need aid over the next two or three years, but we then need a longer-term, strategic review of energy. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister is concentrating her efforts on that.
I want to make three points. First, British coal needs a level playing field in the European Union if it is to have a future. I am not in favour of shutting pits in Germany or France, but if subsidies continue elsewhere on the current scale, we must support British coal.
Secondly, someone must tackle the issue of the interconnector, which allows French and German coal-generated energy to be pumped into the United Kingdom. My third and perhaps most important point is about clean coal technology. If decommissioning Dounreay will cost £4 billion, surely we can find resources for clean coal technology. I appreciate that the Minister is already considering research into that.
Those points and others will doubtless contribute to a longer-term view now that we have managed to secure the short-term transitional funding.

Mr. Michael Clapham: As the chairman of the all-party coalfield communities group, I can tell my right hon. Friend the Minister that the aid package that she has announced today is welcome in mining communities. The group campaigned for the package; she knows that we campaigned hard, and that we lobbied her. The package will be extremely helpful to the coal mining industry.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) said that the Government were all rhetoric. It should be put on record that the Government have honoured their commitment to the mining communities. The Coalfields Regeneration Trust has approved approximately 320 applications, which will mean some £50 million for trying to regenerate some of the coalfield communities that the previous Government neglected so badly.
It should also be put on record that the Government have introduced compensation schemes for vibration white finger, and for chronic bronchitis and emphysema. They are likely to pay out some £2 billion to miners who were subject to negligence by British Coal. [Interruption.] I stress to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that had the previous Government remained in power, the court case that went to appeal would probably have gone to the House of Lords. In an Adjournment debate in January 1996, I proposed a scheme to the previous Government. They replied that they believed that smoking was the bigger cause of chronic bronchitis and emphysema. That implies that they would have fought the case through the House of Lords, and that compensation would not yet have been made available.
The package will give the operational pits stability, and encourage companies to invest further in mining communities. That will bring opportunities to areas such as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy), where there is little industry other than the coal mine. In the long term, investment in that coal mine will ensure its durability.
I have some anxieties, which are due to lifting the gas consents. I believe that they have been lifted early; I understood that they would continue until the new electricity trading arrangements were established. Those are not likely to operate until March next year, and the consents should have been retained until then. A level playing field will be created, which will give coal a little more help.
We are moving towards overdependence on gas. My right hon. Friend is aware that 40 per cent. of electricity in the UK is generated from gas, and lifting the consents is likely to generate another 5 GW of gas-fired electricity. Gas prices are increasing throughout the world. In America, for example, they have tripled during the past two years, and they have been increasing in this country. Becoming more dependent on gas threatens the competitiveness of British industry.
Work on proven and possible gas reserves shows that such reserves are likely to be used up significantly by 2003, and we are likely to be importing gas by 2005. Indeed, the 1998 White Paper pointed out that we will probably import up to 90 per cent. of our gas by 2020. That, too, will pose an enormous threat to the competitiveness of British industry. We know from what environmentalists tell us that coal-fired power stations have a detrimental effect on the environment. We should therefore have the foresight to develop and use clean coal technology.
My right hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that a multiplicity of technologies are available, but one stands out—the integrated combined-cycle gasification system. That system, it is held, could generate electricity from coal efficiently and cleanly—all pollutants would be removed from emissions. Will my right hon. Friend ask her officials to examine the commercial possibilities of that system? It could be the way forward, and if we invest in it, we could secure a sustainable future for the coal industry.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: We ought to put on record the fact that it is 10 years to the day since Mrs. Thatcher got chucked out—she was kicked out like a dog in the night. The interesting thing is that she was kicked out by the Tories, although I had been trying to do that for years. It was Heseltine—I should not refer to him in that way. It was the mob of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and, in the end, all those Cabinet members who did it. She was sat there, crying her eyes out, and Kenneth Clarke and all the rest came up to her and said, "You'll have to go."

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman, although I am sure that he is very well aware of this and needs no reminding, that we should be discussing the motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Skinner: As I was saying, Mrs. Thatcher has got a hell of a lot of responsibility for what we are doing here today. Mrs. Thatcher, those who followed her—including the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)—and the others got rid of all those pits, with the result that at the end of the strike we were left not with 170,000 jobs, but with about 10,000 jobs and 17 pits.
Almost none of the people who were thrown out of the pits in the 1980s and 1990s were in the same position as we were in when I changed pits in 1962. I got shifted from a pit because it closed, but I went to another, and I had a choice of four or five. What really scarred the pit villages in the 1980s and 1990s was the fact that miners had nowhere else to go. The Tories should always be held

to account for that and for the fact that they were so full of revenge that they chucked thousands of miners out into those villages, without any alternative work.
This Government, having come in 1997, have decided to introduce a scheme to save about 10,000 jobs and 17 pits, for a few years at any rate. I do not go a bundle on the specific proposal because some of the money will end up in Richard Budge's pocket; it might even finish up in Rennco's pocket, or in the pockets of anyone else who buys the pits. I wanted a more satisfactory settlement, but I know that the world ain't perfect. When I tell the miners or ex-miners in Derbyshire about the plan, they say, "Christ, Dennis, I wish we'd had one before Shirebrook, Bolsover, Markham and all the rest were shut."
I tell my right hon. Friend that, yes, saving the jobs is welcome. It is interesting that coal mining is one of the few heavy industries left. All the talk in the House today is about the internet, but many internet companies are not worth a row of beans. We are talking about a massive industry. It employed 700,000 people when I started work in the pit, but now only a tiny proportion is left.
According to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett), some Tories in central office are now talking about axing the remaining subsidies and shutting the last 17 pits. They should be made to walk to those pit villages month after month to see the injury that they have caused, with hidden unemployment of 20 per cent. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), some miners finished up at Biwater, and now they have conspired to shut that down as well. The women became the breadwinners in the pits areas, but the textile workers have lost their jobs because of the Tory party's friends.
The scheme is not a lot, but it is better than a poke in the eye with a big stick. We would have liked it in Derbyshire, where there is not even one single deep mine left. I will vote for the measure, as will my hon. Friends.
We hear the Tories rabbit on about subsidies, but they have just taken a subsidy—almost 4 million quid of Short money. That is a subsidy from the taxpayer, and they have the cheek to talk about subsidies being evil. What have they done with some of that subsidy? They have got tin-pot people at central office trying to devise schemes to get rid of pit subsidies. That shows the hypocrisy of the Tories. They will take money from the taxpayer and set up schemes to sack more people. That really is criminal.
I hope that none of the money will go to opencast mines. I heard my right hon. Friend's speech, and it sounded as though they might get some of it. We do not want opencast to desecrate the countryside; we have had enough of it. So if she finds a method—a ploy—to ensure that the money does not finish up there, we will give another cheer. We must stop the imports, to ensure that the Ellingtons, the Hatfields and all the rest have an even longer life.
I have said my party piece. I have had this in my craw for all the years that the Tories were ripping the guts out of my constituency.

Mr. Ashton: What about farmers' subsidies?

Mr. Skinner: They are a different story altogether. BSE cost us 5 billion quid, and they then moan about the Common Market and God knows what else.
We have had a bit of cheer tonight. Now that my right hon. Friend has done that, she has got another job to do, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) referred to it earlier. There is a £3 billion ring fence around chronic bronchitis, emphysema and vibration white finger. Hon. Members will notice that I have put it up from £2 billion to £3 billion already. Now that we have got that heavy load off our minds, we must start to get the lawyers, the doctors and the others who are holding back the claims of those miners who worked all their lives in the pits, many of whom are now coughing their lungs up. My right hon. Friend is a busy woman, but she has another job to do. She has made a bit of a fist of this job; we think we can trust her with that one as well.

Mr. Eric Illsley: I want to reinforce some of the points that my hon. Friends have made. I welcome the subsidy that is being given to the coal industry, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will consider not only the coal mines owned by Richard Budge, but some of the private mines that have also struggled to remain in operation in the past few years. The energy companies—PowerGen, National Power and the others—have screwed down the price of coal over the years and have caused real problems for private mines and the price that they can achieve for their coal for generation.
I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) about the relaxation of the gas consents. Ever since 1912, the biggest competitor of British Coal has been gas, be it town gas or natural gas. Gas will eclipse the coal industry if the dash for gas is allowed to run riot, as it has been in past years.
The demand for gas, the price of oil, the Asian economies that are sucking in oil and gas, thus increasing the price, and OPEC's refusal to increase production have meant that coal is at the moment in a slightly privileged position. Gas and oil prices make coal quite competitive on the energy market. However, I caution hon. Members that our good news could be soured somewhat if more and more gas-fired power stations are allowed to enter the market.
My hon. Friends have argued that we should examine clean coal technology. More than 10 years ago, the Energy Committee, as it then was, produced report after report on clean coal technology, but the previous Administration refused to countenance that technology. They even closed down the last experimental clean coal technology station at Grimethorpe, and refused to consider buying technologies from other countries. So our use of clean coal technology was stopped many years ago. I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider that technology, and I caution against the release of gas consents.

Mrs. Liddell: I shall not try to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) because I doubt whether I could inject quite as much passion into the issue as he did, but I think that he knows that I have more than a sneaking sympathy with everything that he said.
It may help hon. Members if I go through the details of the applicants. As shown on the Department of Trade and Industry website, applications have been received

from RJB in respect of its operations at Selby, Maltby, Harworth, Rossington and Welbeck. Applications have also come from Blenkinsopp collieries and Scottish Coal at Longannet. It would be churlish of me not to mention in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), who because of his position on the Treasury Front Bench cannot speak on these matters, that the gem of his eye, Hatfield Coal, is also an applicant for subsidy.
There is a maximum of £75 million per company. We have put forward an application for approximately £17.5 million for Longannet. Applications from other companies are still under discussion or are yet to be received. I draw hon. Members' attention to the order, which relates to subsidy in excess of £10 million, because subsidies above £10 million must be cleared on the Floor of the House.
Other applications will undoubtedly be made before the end of the year. If pits in hon. Members' constituencies think that they are eligible for subsidy, they must get their applications in before the end of the year.

Mr. Clapham: As my right hon. Friend read through the list of collieries, I noted that there was no reference to Tower colliery in Wales. Could that colliery be prompted to submit an application?

Mrs. Liddell: I know that my hon. Friend has been anxious to secure assistance for Tower. My officials are in discussion with Tower and will continue to be so. As the House knows, all Labour Members are proud of what has been achieved at Tower—a considerable achievement indeed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) asked when the cheque would be in the post. I cannot be specific about that because the Commission must consider the application. However, at the weekend, I spoke informally to the commissioner. She is well aware of the importance of the application from Longannet. I know that her officials are anxious to proceed on those matters as quickly as possible. My officials have gone to considerable lengths to ensure that applications are fully compliant.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), who skimmed over the fact that many of the difficulties faced by the coal industry are directly as a consequence of actions by the previous Administration, asked about the Government's position on state aids in general. We continue to take a tough stance on state aids. The Commission is examining the issue of operating aid to Germany. We are pleased, too, that the Commission is examining aid to France. We will continue to prosecute those issues in so far as it is necessary.
The issue of the stricter gas consents policy has been raised on several occasions. The policy was always viewed as a temporary measure. One of the discoveries that we made when we took over government was the extent to which the energy market was tilted away from the coal industry. The electricity market operated with a distinct bias against it. That is why the stricter gas consents policy was introduced.
The policy is now being lifted because the Government are satisfied that the programme of electricity market reform that was outlined in the White Paper is substantially in place. That was always our position.


We have arrived at the point where we recognise that the policy should be lifted, but we are taking significant action to assist the coal industry through the period of transition.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who has made his apologies to me, raised the issue of the environment. I wish to make it clear that the subsidy scheme is not expected to have a significant environmental impact, mainly because the subsidy will not enable purchasers of coal in the United Kingdom to buy coal more cheaply than they could have bought it in the absence of the scheme. Consequently, the scheme is not aimed at increasing overall demand for coal in the UK; nor will it affect consumers' choices between coal and other fuels. Therefore, in that respect, we see no prospect of environmental damage.
Several hon. Members have raised the issue of cleaner-coal technology. The Government are well aware of that and are anxious to see research into the technology. A considerable amount of work is going on in the private sector. We are conducting an analysis and will do so in even more detail as we proceed with examining the technology. I hope shortly to be in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) specifically to look at developments at Blyth. If the opportunity arises, I shall be happy to seek to meet a delegation.
I say to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that no application for aid for Ellington has been received. He is right to draw attention to the fact that it is for RJB plc to take action to protect Ellington. I notice that he has been specific about ensuring that that is read on to the record.
In relation to the overall operation of the subsidy scheme, my Department stands ready to give what assistance it can. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover asked about the opencast industry. It is clear from European Union rules that the scheme must be non-discriminatory. We cannot discriminate between one source of coal and another.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett) referred to a recent article in the Daily Mirror. I, too, noticed it. I note that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, when pressed by hon. Friends as to his policy on the future of the coal industry, was extremely quiet about what that would involve.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth also raised the question of the interconnector, as did a number of my hon. Friends. I share their anxiety about its operation, and am prosecuting the issue with some vigour because I believe there may be superficial evidence of unfairness. We shall probe, in order to find out whether the evidence is more than superficial.
Tonight's debate has been important to many Labour Members who have a long-standing connection with mining. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West recognised the great contribution made by the late Donald Dewar to the future of Longannet. Indeed, the last conversation that I had with Donald Dewar, days before he died, concerned Longannet's future. I am sure that all Labour Members recognise Donald Dewar's commitment to the industry, and I feel that the future of Longannet constitutes a memorial to the work that he did.
Labour Members have always recognised that the coal industry has an important part to play in future energy development. Let me say to my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and for Bolsover that we also recognise the sacrifices made by men and their families in contributing to the industry. I say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover: yes, the issue of coal subsidies has taken up a great deal of my time, but nothing has taken up more of my time than ensuring that there is justice for the miners. I will not rest—I will not give up—until I am confident that we are moving forward, so that the men and their families who so desperately need compensation are given the right to that compensation.

Mr. Harry Barnes: May I raise something that has not been mentioned yet? In her opening remarks, my right hon. Friend said that additional applications would be considered, including applications relating to small mines. The losses experienced by such mines may mean that they cannot survive, whereas RJB Mining could possibly subsidise one plant from, for instance, opencast operations. Is it possible to take that into account?

Mrs. Liddell: That was a useful question. The decision on aid is made per production unit, regardless of whether the mine is small or large and regardless of its ownership. The key is the ability to show that, notwithstanding present losses, the pit concerned will be in a position to be viable by the time the coal subsidy scheme ends. That is a way of giving a future to an industry that was ignored by the last Administration.
This is a significant night for coal communities. I am very pleased to commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House authorises the Secretary of State to pay, or undertake to pay, by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, and in respect of coal mining qualifying for aid under the UK Coal Operating Aid Scheme, sums exceeding £10 million for each of Hatfield Coal Company Ltd, Mining (Scotland) Limited, and RJB Mining plc.

PETITION

Death of Anna Fisher

Mr. Jon Trickett: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the people of Ryhill and Havercroft in my constituency. It relates to events following the tragic death of Anna Fisher, and the collapse in public confidence in the criminal justice system that succeeded those events.

The Petitioners respectfully request that the House of Commons asks Ministers in the Home Department to review the course of the criminal justice system following Anna's death, and if possible to meet Anna's parents to discuss these and related matters.

And the Petitioners remain, etc

To lie upon the Table.

Flooding (Gowdall)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Mr. Ian Cawsey: Mr. Speaker—I am pleased to get your title right this time—I welcome you to the Chair for this debate. A week ago, you kindly called me at Prime Minister's Question Time, when I raised the issue of flooding in the village of Gowdall in my constituency. I was pleased to receive a positive response from my right hon. Friend, who has subsequently made efforts to get the situation moving. Nevertheless, a week later, the village still has severe problems. I should like to explain the problems to the Minister, and give him an opportunity to comment on some of the village residents' very real concerns about all the events of the past fortnight.
Gowdall is a small village in the north-west tip of my constituency, on the border between east and west Yorkshire, and has suffered dreadfully from flooding in the past week or so. Of course, there have been floods in many parts of the country. Floods in York—which moved down around Selby, and into parts of Selby—received national media attention, but they ended up in Gowdall. We have also seen media reports from various places about how the situation is returning to normal and people are getting back to their business. In Gowdall, however, the situation is still difficult, as water is still within the village boundary and some residents are unable to return to their homes.
When the water first started moving towards Gowdall, the Environment Agency attempted to prevent it from reaching the village by making a dam across a railway embankment. Sadly, there was so much water that the dam burst. Very quickly, Gowdall was under several feet of water and people had to be evacuated from their homes. Almost 100 homes, in a village of 150 homes, had to be evacuated. It has been a traumatic experience for everyone involved.
Some of my comments in this debate will deal with the response of agencies, emergency services and local authorities to the flooding. I should say right away that there has been nothing but warm praise for the exceptional efforts made by people from the agencies, emergency services and local authorities who were in the village as events unfolded. They were working against extraordinary weather, and they faced an extremely difficult task with great fortitude. I know from conversations with villagers that they very much welcomed all those efforts.
Whenever there is a severe flood, questions are inevitably asked about the Environment Agency—which, after all, has the responsibility for looking after the country's flood defences. Villagers had some real concerns—which, as people's homes were flooded, turned to anger—about the agency's actions. The entire ground floors of some people's houses were flooded, and some bungalows were entirely flooded. The damage has been very significant and very real.
One reason why frustration has turned to anger is that, last week, the local community tried to organise a public meeting with the Environment Agency, so that agency representatives could answer questions about what had

gone wrong and what the agency could do to help in the future. The Environment Agency, however, failed to attend the meeting. That has made matters rather worse.
Last week, I raised that very point with the Prime Minister. Subsequently, on Sunday, Sir John Harman, the Environment Agency chairman, visited the village and met several of the villagers. He heard some of their concerns, and he answered their questions the best he could. I am pleased to tell the Minister that, this weekend, we hope to have another public meeting which Sir John has assured us will be attended by a member of his staff who will answer villagers' questions. I think that that in itself will be a step forward.
One of the villagers' main concerns was about why the floods were so severe this time. Gowdall has flooded in the past. Indeed, there were particularly bad floods in 1947, but there has never been flooding on the scale that has been experienced in the past week or so. People want to know whether that was due to the actions taken by the Environment Agency.
We all understand that floods are fast-moving events; that an extremely large quantity of water has to go somewhere; and that, after all, flood defences direct water but do not take it away. Nevertheless, there is real concern that the actions taken by the Environment Agency made matters in Gowdall very much worse than they had ever been before. That gives rise to a very real feeling that because bigger communities needed protecting, Gowdall was somehow neglected. It is a small village and people were concerned that it had become expendable as attempts were made to save larger communities. The absence of any attempt by the agency to answer that point has heightened that fear.
People want to know what lessons have been learned. We have certainly found out that the enormous plain of water that remains—which continues for several miles and which is quite deep in parts—will not go away naturally. The Government have brought in some of the largest water pumps in the world from Holland, where they understand quite a lot about the process. This has been done at enormous expense. If this happens again in Gowdall—obviously, we hope that it will not—or elsewhere in the country, what preparations will the Government and the agency be making to ensure that they do not have to take the extreme measure of importing the technical equipment necessary to pump the water away? Lessons need to be learned and we would very much like to hear from the Minister about that.
We understand that there is likely to be some temporary work to install some sort of flood defence as soon as possible. It is absolutely certain that the natural defences and barriers that were in place before the floods have been completely obliterated by the water that has come into the village. At the moment, the village does not even have the level of protection that it previously enjoyed. Residents are concerned that the weather may worsen again. Indeed, we are told to expect several months of this. If the village is left unprotected, all the efforts that are now being made will be wasted and the residents will be back where they were a few days ago.
The agency seems to be saying that it is likely to be five weeks before even a temporary defence will be in place in the village. That certainly causes concern among residents. Any reassurance that the Minister can give us on that will be most welcome.
Most of the houses and bungalows in the village have been so badly flooded that it will be some time before people can move back into them, but residents are trying to get back to the village to do some work on their properties. Some of them are bringing in caravans and mobile homes. If people are considering taking the time, trouble and expense of having a mobile home on their land or in their drives for weeks, before the village has any flood protection, they want some advice from the Minister about that.
When the temporary defences are in place and people move back into the village to begin the recovery process and try to get their lives back to normal as quickly as possible, they want to know about longer-term issues and what will be done to ensure that the village remains adequately protected. Will there be a review of Britain's flood defences and will they be co-ordinated so that in protecting some parts of the country we do not push the water into other communities? Surely the whole point of good and adequate defence is not only to protect larger communities, but, wherever possible, to move water away from all communities so that people can get on with their lives with a degree of confidence in what is happening in their areas.
Part of that process can be the use of local people. People who have lived in an area for a long time often have an extremely good knowledge of what happens when water moves and banks burst. They have seen such things happen over the years, and there was some criticism, when problems began to affect Gowdall, to the effect that some local people had tried to speak to—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Mr. Cawsey: As floods reached Gowdall, local people tried to offer advice to Environment Agency workers about where best to erect barriers and what might happen as a result. There was some criticism that that advice was turned down. I mentioned that to Sir John Harman at the weekend, and he seemed to want to ensure that local people's knowledge was fed into the process. I hope that the Minister will offer some clarification and guidance on that.
A crucial element in the process will be recovery. A small and extremely pretty village has been devastated by the floods. People want to be assured that it will be rebuilt in a way that restores its natural charm and as quickly as possible. The Government clearly have a role in making aid and assistance available. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in that regard.
Lessons can be learned from what happened and from the way in which the operation was handled. The local authority is East Riding of Yorkshire unitary council, which has had people dealing with command centres and so on from the moment that the floods began. It must be remembered that most people in the village had to be evacuated, and that they were scattered to addresses in the locality. There was a feeling among them that contact was not maintained properly at that time. As a result, villagers felt that they did not know what was being done for them.

I hope that another flood does not happen but, if it does, I trust that the communication process will be handled much better.
I know that the Minister has written to council chief executives and to those Members of Parliament who represent affected areas, and that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has recommended that areas that have suffered floods should form a local flood recovery committee. I should be interested to know whether that has been put in hand.
However, I understand that, if such committees are formed and begin to do the work expected of them, they will be required to contribute to a Cabinet sub-committee that my hon. Friend will chair. Will he say what such local committees are likely to get from that Cabinet sub-committee in terms of support and aid to ensure that villages such as Gowdall recover as quickly as possible?
Councils have a difficult job when incidents such as the recent floods happen in their area. They need to have the confidence that the Government will supply the support and assistance that will help them get on with the job in hand.
I said earlier that people were moving back into the village slowly but surely, and that an option in some cases was to use mobile homes. It is possible that, for large mobile homes, difficulties might arise over matters such as planning approvals. I hope that my hon. Friend will reassure me that such matters can be dealt with speedily and efficiently, so that people can be allowed to get on with their lives as quickly as possible.
In addition, I understand that East Riding of Yorkshire unitary council has told people who are unable to live in their flood-damaged homes for as long as 12 months that they will be eligible for a council tax exemption. Again, I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to confirm that, as it will be very helpful for people in Gowdall.
Insurance is a key issue. Most people are insured and are already involved in the process of submitting claims, arranging visits from loss adjusters and trying to get work done in their homes. However, that needs to be done speedily and efficiently. What have the Government done to arrange meetings with representatives of the insurance industry to ensure that claims are dealt with as quickly as possible?
Apart from dealing with current claims, local people have a real concern about the future. Will they find it difficult to obtain policies? Will their premiums be unaffordable? It would be an important reassurance for people in Gowdall to learn that the Government are putting pressure on the insurance industry to ensure that they receive insurance in the future.
Sadly, there are always some people who are uninsured at a time of crisis—Gowdall is no exception; I have spoken to one or two people in the village who are in that predicament. My hon. Friend has visited Gowdall. He has met—as have I—Mr. Hinchcliffe, a good man who has been devastated by the events. I visited the village twice last weekend; on the first occasion, Mr. Hinchcliffe had not yet returned to his home, but on my second visit, we looked around his house together. It was hard not to be moved at the sight of all the damage left in his home—especially as he was uninsured.
I realise that my hon. Friend takes the Government view; they are not a free insurance company and insurable risk is a personal responsibility—but we are in this


situation. Out of a sense of humanity, what help and advice can be offered to people who find themselves with such problems?
When my hon. Friend visited Gowdall, he said that the social fund might be able to give interest-free crisis loans to people for part of the costs—for example, for furniture. However, one of the practical difficulties is that the social fund is cash limited over a financial year and that we are already some way through the current financial year. People may find that, when they apply to the Benefits Agency, they are told that they are eligible but that there is no—or little—money left in the fund. It would be reassuring if my hon. Friend could tell us whether additional funds will be allocated to the Benefits Agency, so that people who are in significant need have somewhere to turn to.
Many people feel that the actions of the Environment Agency have played a part, so it is hardly surprising that people want to know whether they have access to compensation schemes through the agency. Not only the village of Gowdall but much of the surrounding farmland was flooded. I spent part of Saturday being taken around the area in a police boat. It was like being on a huge reservoir; it was difficult to remember that, only 10 days previously, one could have walked across fields.
The impact on fanners has obviously been devastating—as everyone is aware, they are having a bad enough time already. We understand that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is willing to consider the use of the set-aside scheme to give money to farms in those areas. That will be welcome and I do not want to be churlish about it, but the loss of crops or livestock significantly outweighs anything that farmers would receive from a set-aside scheme. If media reports are to be believed, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are discussing that matter. I should welcome any comments that my hon. Friend may be able to make about that.
Farming is not the only business in Gowdall; I have already written to my hon. Friend about a carp fishery in the village. That is the one property on the other side of the railway embankment; inevitably, when the Environment Agency decided to try to build a dam on that embankment, it was absolutely certain that the property on the wrong side would be flooded. That is exactly what happened. It happened very quickly. A warning was given, but it did not allow my constituent time to do something about his fishery stock. He lost tens of thousands of pounds of stock as a result of that action in trying to dam off the embankment. I should be grateful for any comment that the Minister could make on whether businesses that find themselves in such a position may be considered for any help in the future.
We all need to look to the future. Planning is a real issue. One thing that struck me when I spoke to villagers was that many of them who had been in the village for some time felt that, over the years, bad planning decisions had been taken. The planning line in the local plan for Gowdall allows future expansion of buildings only on lower and lower land, when one would think that the logic would be to do the reverse. I hope that the Minister will take back to the Government a message that if we are to have future development in areas such as Gowdall, local authorities really must be given proper guidance, to ensure that we do not allow building to occur that will place future home owners' homes at risk.
People in Gowdall love their village, and they want to stay in it. They want answers to the failings of the defence systems. They want reassurance about new defence systems, access to affordable insurance, and a recovery plan that ensures that the village, which they all rightly adore, is returned to its former pristine condition as soon as possible. Although I have asked about many detailed issues, that is the simple message that villagers want me to give the Minister tonight. I hope that my hon. Friend can respond positively to that genuine desire on the part of local residents.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) on securing the debate, and on the way that he has raised the understandable and legitimate concerns of the people of Gowdall, whom he represents.
My hon. Friend and I have been in touch so frequently about Gowdall, because I have ministerial responsibility for these matters, that, following his assiduous pressure, there is almost nothing that I do not know about the village. I know how well he has served his constituents and how much time he has devoted to visiting them, expressing their concerns and speaking to local organisations. I quite understand the concerns of the people that he represents. I shall try to deal with some of the points that he has raised.
I do understand that when people have suffered an event of this kind, and had their home wrecked and many of their possessions destroyed, they feel very upset. There is an understandable tendency to look for someone to blame—to ask who is responsible. This flood was exceptional, and in relation to what happened in Gowdall, there was very little that could have been done to stop it.
I think that some of the comments by residents of Gowdall that have been reported are somewhat unjustified, even given their distress and the stress that they are under. For example, I was very sorry to read a comment in the Daily Mail by a local resident, Mr. Archer, who claimed:
We feel we have been forgotten by the Government. John Prescott and Tony Blair have not come here and Prince Charles was in Yorkshire the other day because of the floods but he didn't visit us.
I obviously cannot direct Prince Charles, but my hon. Friend well knows that, following his intervention directed at me as a Minister responsible, I did visit Gowdall twice—the first time before it had flooded, when he and I visited some of the Environment Agency staff who were working on flood defences in the area, because we were very worried about what was happening to Gowdall. I spoke to him by telephone many times to say that the situation was very grave, and of course, warnings were given. The warning systems worked very well. Gowdall had four days warning of the flood risk.
I changed my itinerary and visited the people of the village on 11 November along with Professor Roy Ward, the chairman of the Yorkshire regional flood defence committee, and Bryan Utteridge, the head of the Environment Agency's flood defence group. Gowdall also had a visit from Sir John Harman who accompanied my hon. Friend last Sunday to talk to the villagers. Although I appreciate that I am not in the same category as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I am the Minister
responsible for flood defences and I do not think that my visit suggests that the Government have ignored the villagers' plight. I received reports on Gowdall that were updated three times a day, and I have followed the situation carefully.
Since the floods, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that, even though the floods are no longer in the national news—in most places they have receded—he does not want people in flood-hit areas to think that they are being ignored. He certainly does not want the people of Gowdall to think that they are being ignored. As a result, he has set up a Cabinet Committee taskforce to deal with floods and the aftermath of floods. He has asked me, as the Minister responsible for flood defences, to chair the committee.
My hon. Friend asked me about insurance, and I understand that it is an important issue for people who have been flooded out and are worried about whether they will be able to obtain reinsurance or will have to face big premiums. The Cabinet Committee and my colleagues in the Treasury have met the Association of British Insurers to discuss the problem. We stressed to the association that we want insurance companies to provide the speedy professional response that we know that they are capable of providing. We want them to provide the services that people need and that will help them with their problems.
Although premiums and the services of insurance companies are subject to commercial considerations, the association and individual insurance companies assured me that there will be no moves towards preventing people from obtaining insurance or raising premiums by a large amount. People will receive the insurance cover that they need and they will not face huge increases in their premiums.
When I visited Gowdall with my hon. Friend, I met people who had no insurance. One cannot help but feel sympathy for people in that position. However, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, the Government are not an insurance company. We do not have the facilities to become one; we do not have assessors; and we cannot make provision for insurance. We cannot offer people compensation if they do not have insurance for insurable risks. However, we have the facility through crisis loans and the social fund to help the people who are most in need—those without assets or funds in the bank to buy the essentials that they require. Appeal funds have also been set up to help people in those circumstances.
I was concerned to hear from my hon. Friend of reports that people, who had inquired about the social fund and crisis loans, had been told that they were cash-limited funds—that is true—and that, because we were coming towards the end of the year, the funds were nearly exhausted. People were told that their applications may not be successful.
I make it clear to my hon. Friend that I conveyed that report to the Cabinet Committee taskforce group and discussed it at the highest level in the Benefits Agency. I have been assured that, if the funds in the areas affected by floods are cash limited, extra resources will be made available. People should have no fear about making an application if they fit the criteria. The money will be made available from central contingency funds.
My hon. Friend said that people are asking why Gowdall was flooded. There is no evidence whatever that Gowdall was sacrificed to try to protect other areas, and I would not expect the Environment Agency to take such action. The country experienced the worst floods since 1947, and Gowdall had floods that were worse than those of 1947. The River Ouse was at its highest level for 400 years. To put it simply, Gowdall is on a flood plain and was therefore in the path of a flood seven miles long, containing 30 million tonnes of water; that is why it flooded.
Some 50 employees of the Environment Agency and the East Riding of Yorkshire unitary council worked night and day, at some risk to themselves, trying to protect Gowdall by sandbagging the defences and shoring up a railway embankment to the west of the village. Sadly, those defences were overwhelmed because of the sheer volume of water. I emphasise that Gowdall was not sacrificed, and an enormous amount of work was done to try to defend it.
My hon. Friend asked me about compensation for farmers whose land is flooded. When I went to Gowdall, I talked to local farmers about the situation, and I sympathise with their case. We have used our national discretion to allow farmers whose land is underwater to put that land into set-aside retrospectively, which means that they will receive area payments. I understand that some farmers, especially potato farmers, will not benefit from such measures. I talked to them, and I know that Ben Gill, the president of the National Farmers Union, has been to see my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Mr. Gill brought with him a dossier, detailing the damage to farmland caused by the floods, and that is being considered.
My hon. Friend mentioned his constituent who is a carp farmer, which is a specialist profession. If there are issues relating to whether his land was flooded because of the actions of the Environment Agency, I will make inquiries and find out whether any compensation is available. I will then contact my hon. Friend about the matter.
Because the washlands on which Gowdall sits had flooded, there were problems even when the river levels went down because Gowdall found itself, sitting on a flood plain, with water trapped between that plain and the river embankment. The Environment Agency brought in, at some cost, three of the world's biggest mobile pumps, to try to drain the water in Gowdall, and it has gone down very slowly. The agency also acted to drain the washlands by breaching the banks to let the water out. It will repair those breaches when the water has drained out. In addition, the internal drainage boards' pumps are working night and day to pump water out of the washlands. My latest information is that yesterday only three homes in Gowdall remained flooded, and I hope that the situation has improved since.
The Environment Agency has been meeting with local residents at 10 o'clock every morning to discuss the situation. It is currently evaluating the defences, and lessons will be learned. In response to my hon. Friend's point about the Rivers Aire and Ouse, I can tell him that there will be a full catchment area review, which the Government will fund through the agency. As my hon. Friend already knows, an extra £51 million has been made available to enhance and uprate flood defences, and the agency will review the flood defences in the Gowdall area to see what needs to be done and whether extra


expenditure is required. Of course, there will have to be inspections and repairs because many of the flood defences held back water for much longer than they were designed to.
We must pay tribute to the Environment Agency, the Army, the police, the emergency services and local councils. Their response was fantastic and professional, and they smoothly carried out the emergency plans, which worked very well. They did well to defend many areas and the homes in them that were under considerable risk. It is a tragedy that Gowdall just could not be defended; it was in the path of a gigantic flood working its way towards the North sea.
On my hon. Friend's point about temporary homes and caravans, I understand that the council is considering council tax exemptions, which I shall of course check.
I have spoken to the chief executive of the East Riding of Yorkshire unitary council and, as chairman of the taskforce, have written to every local authority affected by flooding, asking for multi-agency committees to be set up. We want to try to spread best practice. We want to play our part through central Government agencies to work with local authorities to try to ensure that people receive the service that they expect and to which, indeed, they are entitled.
However, I again say to my hon. Friend that many who work for East Riding of Yorkshire unitary council were very disappointed by some of the villagers' comments, which I did not think were representative. The council maintained a 24-hour presence in the Gowdall area from the very beginning. Its workers monitored the progress of the flood, radioing in on its progress and depth. Its workers were among the 50 people who sandbagged the defences to try to save Gowdall.
The council opened up the Snaith bronze control centre and helped to re-house 70 people from Gowdall. It provided a mobile service centre, which is a model to other areas. A converted bus is now parked in Gowdall and staffed 24 hours a day. Incidentally, many council workers have not earned overtime for working such hours. They have worked because of their commitment to public service, and because there was an emergency and they wanted to play their part.
The council started the clean-up, providing skips. Staff helped to move carpets and damaged goods. A team is to visit every house in Gowdall to ask whether people need help or attention. A building controls inspector is on call to advise people on structural damage to their homes. Environmental health inspectors are also on call to advise people. Specialist council insurance assessors are on call

for the people of Gowdall, advising them on what they should be claiming. The council helped to ensure 24-hour policing when the village was flooded, and the police ensured that everyone in Gowdall was accounted for. That issue was raised with me when I visited the village. The council is committed to a clean-up.
The support that the council has provided has been exemplary. Indeed, I know that in places such as Stamford Bridge, which has been flooded for the second time in two years, people have been very appreciative of the council's actions on their behalf. Although I understand that people in Gowdall feel concerned and are under some stress, they ought to bear in mind that some of the comments have been very hurtful to people who have showed such commitment to the area and worked so hard to try to ensure that residents have received the support and backing that they need and deserve.

Mr. Cawsey: I am conscious that my hon. Friend is rapidly running out of time, but anxious that he comments on the temporary flood defences that are not likely to be in place for five weeks. What advice would he give people who want to move back into the area in the meantime?

Mr. Morley: I understand my hon. Friend's point. There will be some risk during the winter because the ground is saturated and the rivers are full. Further rain may cause flooding. People should remember that flooding was the result of extreme circumstances and that defences will be repaired and strengthened as soon as possible.
Of course I cannot give my hon. Friend a guarantee that there will not be further floods; I do not think that anyone could do that. However, we can try to reduce the risks, and we shall be working with the Environment Agency to do so. We shall be advising people in Gowdall about the risks and when they can start to think about moving mobile homes into the area, if that is what they want.
I emphasise that we fully understand the pressures that the people of Gowdall are under. I fully understand the enormous commitment that my hon. Friend has made to the village and his anxiety in ensuring that residents receive the support that they need and to which they are entitled. I give a commitment, as the Minister responsible, to work with him to ensure that they receive that support, in order to try to overcome the distress and extreme circumstances that they have faced, so that we can bring normality back to the village of Gowdall as quickly as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.